Court Opinion

ID: 9369898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 01:00:28.566102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.033086
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10719         Document: 00516640391             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10719
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               February 9, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Larry Carl Mack,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-385-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges
   Per Curiam: *
          Larry Carl Mack pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm
   by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
   He appeals and, relying on National Federation of Independent Business et al. v.
   Sebelius et al., 567 U.S. 519 (2012), argues for the first time that § 922(g)(1)
   exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and is

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10719      Document: 00516640391          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                    No. 22-10719

   thus unconstitutional. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for
   summary affirmance and an alternative request for an extension of time to file
   its brief.
           Mack correctly concedes that his arguments challenging the
   constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar,
   733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,
   518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.
   1999). He raises the arguments to preserve them for further review.
           Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion
   for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an
   extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district
   court is AFFIRMED.

                                         2