Court Opinion

ID: 9965284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 00:00:46.538613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:51.007393
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10501   Document: 83-1   Page: 1   Date Filed: 05/01/2024

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

                         No. 23-10501
                                                                FILED
                                                             May 1, 2024
                       Summary Calendar
                       ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                Clerk
United States of America,

                                                Plaintiff—Appellee,

                            versus

George Henry Purdy, III,

                                             Defendant—Appellant,

                    consolidated with
                      _____________

                         No. 23-10502
                       Summary Calendar
                       _____________

United States of America,

                                                Plaintiff—Appellee,

                            versus

George Henry Purdy,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 23-10501            Document: 83-1         Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/01/2024

                                      No. 23-10501
                                    c/w No. 23-10502

                   ______________________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                          USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-302-1,
                                 4:16-CR-196-1
                  ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       George Purdy, III, pleaded guilty of possessing a firearm after a felony
conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He appeals,
raising a claim of sentencing error and urging that § 922(g)(1) is unconsti-
tutional. Purdy also appeals the judgment revoking his supervised release in
a separate matter, but, because he does not brief any challenge to the revoca-
tion or the revocation sentence, he has abandoned those issues. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
       For the first time on appeal, Purdy contends that § 922(g)(1) violates
the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Our review is for plain error. See United States v.
Snarr, 704 F.3d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 2013). Because it is not clear that Bruen or
other existing precedent dictates that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, Purdy
cannot show plain error. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th
Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024)
(No. 23-6769).
       Purdy also contends that, as interpreted by this court, § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority to regulate com-
merce. As he concedes, that argument is foreclosed. See United States v.
Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                             2
Case: 23-10501        Document: 83-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/01/2024

                                  No. 23-10501
                                c/w No. 23-10502

       Finally, Purdy maintains that the district court erred in relying on
statements in the presentence report (“PSR”) that a domestic partner told
police he threatened her with a pistol. A sentencing court “may consider any
information which bears sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable
accuracy.” United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012) (inter-
nal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether this standard is met in a
given instance is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v.
Ortega-Calderon, 814 F.3d 757, 760 (5th Cir. 2016).
       “Bald, conclusionary statements do not acquire the patina of reliabil-
ity by mere inclusion in the PSR.” United States v. Elwood, 999 F.2d 814, 817-
18 (5th Cir. 1993). Here, however, the statements are part of a “detailed and
specific” account. United States v. Parkerson, 984 F.3d 1124, 1129 (5th Cir.
2021). The PSR indicates this account was corroborated in part by the pres-
ence of marks on the victim’s body, Purdy’s admission that a dispute oc-
curred, and the discovery of a pistol and ammunition in his apartment. Purdy
fails to show that consideration of the victim’s allegations, as summarized in
the PSR, was clearly erroneous. In turn, because he did not present rebuttal
evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the allegations were unreliable, the
district court was entitled to accept them. See Harris, 702 F.3d at 230.
       Purdy criticizes the reasoning employed in Harris and Parkerson with
respect to burden-shifting and information based on police investigations.
We reject his criticisms under the rule of orderliness. See United States v.
Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014).
       The judgments are AFFIRMED.

                                       3