Court Opinion

ID: 9394296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-13 00:00:37.432788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.656330
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20300         Document: 00516749508             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/12/2023

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

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      May 12, 2023
                                       No. 22-20300                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Demarcus Shon Johnson,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-238-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Demarcus Shon Johnson was convicted after a jury trial of possession
   of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
   The district court sentenced him to 50 months of imprisonment and two
   years of supervised release.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20300      Document: 00516749508          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                    No. 22-20300

          Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress
   the firearm that was found during a search of the vehicle he had been driving.
   We review the district court’s factual findings, including its credibility
   determinations, for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
   States v. Bass, 996 F.3d 729, 736 (5th Cir. 2021). “A factual finding is not
   clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.”
   Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Where a district court’s
   denial of a suppression motion is based on live oral testimony, the clearly
   erroneous standard is particularly strong because the judge had the
   opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” Id. at 736-37
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, we view the
   evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, which is the
   Government in this case. See id. at 737.
          A warrantless search of an automobile is permitted by the Fourth
   Amendment if the police officers have probable cause to believe that the
   vehicle contains contraband. United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 523 (5th
   Cir. 2006). In addition, where probable cause justifies the search of the
   vehicle, “it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents
   that may conceal the object of the search.” California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S.
   565, 570 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Given that a
   police officer testified that he smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle and
   that he observed an empty firearm holster in the vehicle, the officers had
   probable cause to search the vehicle. See United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199
   F.3d 753, 760 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 686 (5th
   Cir. 1995).
          Johnson also contends that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
   Amendment. Because Johnson did not make this argument in district court,
   we review only for plain error. See United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950
   (5th Cir. 1994). To show plain error, Johnson must show a forfeited error

                                              2
Case: 22-20300      Document: 00516749508           Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                     No. 22-20300

   that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have
   the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness,
   integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
          In particular, Johnson asserts that the Supreme Court’s recent
   decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111
   (2022), suggests that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. An error is not clear or
   obvious where an issue is disputed or unresolved, or where there is an
   absence of controlling authority. United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d
   227, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2009). In fact, “[e]ven where the argument requires
   only extending authoritative precedent, the failure of the district court [to do
   so] cannot be plain error.” Wallace v. Mississippi, 43 F.4th 482, 500 (5th Cir.
   2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because there is no
   binding precedent explicitly holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and
   because it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a result, Johnson is unable to
   demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious. See Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d
   at 230-31.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                               3