Court Opinion

ID: 9402730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 18:00:40.385029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.254280
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10896        Document: 00516789784             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/16/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-10896
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                  June 16, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Rene Rigoberto Rodriguez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:20-CR-354-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Rene Rigoberto Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal receipt of a firearm
   by a person under indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n) and
   924(a)(1)(D). He maintains § 922(n) does not pass the historical test
   provided in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111
   (2022), and is therefore in violation of the Second Amendment. Because

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10896      Document: 00516789784           Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                     No. 22-10896

   Rodriguez (as he concedes) did not raise this issue in district court, review is
   only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th
   Cir. 2012).
          Under that standard, Rodriguez must show a forfeited plain error
   (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that
   affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the
   reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s]
   the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.
          An error is not clear or obvious where an issue is disputed or
   unresolved, or where there is an absence of controlling authority. E.g., United
   States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230–31 (5th Cir. 2009); see also
   United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 802 (5th Cir. 2015) (“In considering
   whether an error is clear or obvious we look to the state of the law at the time
   of appeal”. (citation omitted)). In an unpublished opinion, our court rejected
   the argument that § 922(n) is clearly-or-obviously unconstitutional under
   Bruen. See United States v. Avila, No. 22-50088, 2022 WL 17832287, at *2
   (5th Cir. 21 Dec. 2022), petition for cert. filed (20 Apr. 2023) (No. 22-7352).
          There is no binding precedent holding § 922(n) unconstitutional, and
   it is not clear Bruen dictates such a result. Id. Accordingly, Rodriguez is
   unable to demonstrate the requisite clear-or-obvious error. E.g., Rodriguez-
   Parra, 581 F.3d at 230–31; United States v. Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940,
   946 (5th Cir. 2009) (“It certainly is not plain error for the district court to
   rely on an unpublished opinion that is squarely on point.”).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           2