Court Opinion

ID: 9950267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:00:28.278881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:18.532978
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10040            Document: 77-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10040
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                March 13, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Ardis Williams,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CR-239-1
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Defendant-Appellant Ardis Williams appeals his conviction of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He presents three arguments on appeal. First, he argues that
§ 922(g)(1) should be construed as requiring more than a showing that the
firearm he possessed traveled in interstate commerce and, alternatively, if the

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10040         Document: 77-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                   No. 23-10040

fact of interstate travel is sufficient, § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it
exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers to regulate interstate commerce.
Second, he argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the
Second Amendment in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York
State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Third,
he argues the district court violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure when it accepted his plea.
       Regarding Williams’s Commerce Clause arguments, we review the
interpretation or constitutionality of federal statutes de novo. See United
States v. Adam, 296 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Bailey, 115
F.3d 1222, 1225 (5th Cir. 1997). Here, circuit precedent forecloses his
argument that past movement of a firearm in interstate commerce is
insufficient. See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242–43 (5th Cir. 1996).
Furthermore, 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, 145–46 (5th Cir. 2013); see
also United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, these arguments are foreclosed.
       We review Williams’s Bruen argument for plain error because he did
not preserve the issue. To demonstrate plain error, Williams must show that
(1) there is an error, (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to
reasonable dispute, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we will
exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). However, “[m]eeting all
four prongs is difficult, as it should be.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We recently rejected a plain-error Bruen challenge to

                                        2
Case: 23-10040        Document: 77-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                 No. 23-10040

§ 922(g)(1). See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023).
Williams’s challenge is likewise unavailing. See id. at 572-74.
       Lastly, Williams argues that, in light of his challenges to § 922(g)(1),
the district court misadvised him of the nature of his offense and erroneously
accepted the factual basis for his guilty plea, in violation of Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G), 11(b)(3).         Given our disposition of
Williams’s underlying arguments, it follows that the district court committed
no Rule 11 error.
       AFFIRMED.

                                       3