Court Opinion

ID: 9966449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-07 00:00:38.154947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:21.259916
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11098           Document: 106-1           Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/06/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 22-11098
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                     May 6, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

James Edward Young,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:22-CR-29-1
                   ______________________________

Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       James Edward Young appeals his guilty plea conviction and the 120-
month sentence imposed for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He
asks this court to remand the case for correction of clerical errors in the
statement of reasons to reflect that: (1) the revised guidelines range was 70 to
87 months; and (2) the 120-month sentence was above the guidelines range.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11098       Document: 106-1      Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                 No. 22-11098

Because the statement of reasons serves only a “record-keeping function”
and does not provide any “procedural safeguard[s]” to a defendant and
because the transcript reflects the correct guidelines range and that the
sentence was above the guidelines range, the error is harmless. United States
v. Shakbazyan, 841 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Maturin,
887 F.3d 716, 725 n.44 (5th Cir. 2018).
       In addition, Young asserts that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court did not account for his acceptance of
responsibility, which should have received significant weight. He preserved
this issue by requesting a within-guidelines sentence and objecting to the
sentence as substantively unreasonable. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United
States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764-67 (2020). The district court correctly calculated
the advisory guidelines range, evaluated the information in the presentence
report, and considered the parties’ arguments, Young’s allocution, and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He has not shown that the district court did not
account for an important factor, gave significant weight to an improper
factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.
See United States v. Hudgens, 4 F.4th 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2021). He is
essentially asking us to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors and substitute our
judgment on appeal, which we will not do. See United States v. Hernandez,
876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
       Young also contends 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional because it
exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause. His
argument is foreclosed by precedent, as we have “consistently upheld the
constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)” as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority
under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145
(5th Cir. 2013).

                                      2
Case: 22-11098        Document: 106-1        Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                   No. 22-11098

       Finally, Young contends § 922(g)(1) violates his rights under the
Second Amendment in view of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17-18 (2022). Because he did not raise this issue in the
district court, our review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show plain error, he must show a forfeited error
that was clear or obvious error and that affected his substantial rights. Id. If
he makes such a showing, we have discretion to correct the error but will do
so only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets
omitted). We recently rejected an unpreserved Bruen-based challenge to the
constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment. See United
States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL
1143799 (U.S. March 18, 2024) (No. 23-6769). Accordingly, Young has not
demonstrated reversible plain error. See id.; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
       AFFIRMED.

                                        3