Court Opinion

ID: 9955704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 01:00:36.306155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.756177
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10156            Document: 69-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/28/2024

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                     No. 23-10156                                  March 28, 2024
                                   ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                        Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Tedrick Demond Otunba,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:21-CR-462-1
                   ______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Graves and Wilson, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Tedrick Demond Otunba pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm
after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1).       The district court sentenced Otunba to 90 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Otunba’s

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10156             Document: 69-1          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/28/2024

                                         No. 23-10156

appointed attorney filed an Anders 1 brief and moved to withdraw as counsel.
We affirm the district court’s judgment and deny the motion to withdraw as
moot.
                                               I
        Otunba pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony
conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
As part of his plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal or collaterally
attack his conviction or sentence except (1) to appeal a sentence exceeding
the statutory maximum or resulting from an arithmetic error, (2) to challenge
the voluntariness of the plea or waiver, or (3) to bring claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. The district court sentenced Otunba to 90 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He filed a timely notice
of appeal.
        Otunba’s attorney moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief,
arguing there were no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Otunba was informed
of his counsel’s motion and of his right to respond, but he did not file a
response. His counsel later filed a supplemental Anders brief after this court
ordered him to address whether Otunba could raise a nonfrivolous Second
Amendment challenge to his conviction under § 922(g)(1) in light of New
York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. 2 Otunba was informed of his
counsel’s supplemental brief and filed a response, arguing that § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional.

        _____________________
        1
            Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
        2
            597 U.S. 1 (2022).

                                               2
 Case: 23-10156            Document: 69-1          Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/28/2024

                                         No. 23-10156

                                              II
                                              A
        Otunba entered into a knowing and voluntary appeal waiver, and the
Government informed Otunba’s counsel that it plans to enforce the waiver.
Nevertheless, we pretermit consideration of Otunba’s waiver and instead
address the merits of his Second Amendment challenge. 3
                                               B
        Otunba’s challenge fails on plain error review. Otunba did not raise a
Second Amendment challenge before the district court so our review is for
plain error. To establish reversible error in the plain error context, Otunba
must show (1) an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affected his
substantial rights. 4 Even if Otunba makes such a showing, this court has
discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 5
        A “lack of binding authority is often dispositive in the plain error
context.” 6 “[E]ven where an argument merely requires extending existing

        _____________________
        3
          See United States v. Smith, No. 22-10795, 2023 WL 5814936, at *2 (5th Cir. Sept.
8, 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“Although the Government advances a compelling
argument regarding the applicability of [defendant’s] appeal waiver, we nevertheless elect
to evaluate his argument on the merits.”), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 701 (2024).
        4
            See United States v. Brown, 437 F.3d 450, 451 (5th Cir. 2006).
        5
          Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (alterations and internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)); see
also United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 425 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)
(“Additionally, we do not view the fourth prong as automatic if the other three prongs are
met.”).
        6
          United States v. McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571, 577 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015)), cert.
denied, 143 S. Ct. 282 (2022).

                                               3
 Case: 23-10156         Document: 69-1           Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/28/2024

                                        No. 23-10156

precedent, the district court’s failure to do so cannot be plain error.” 7
Because there is no binding precedent holding § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional,
and it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a conclusion, Otunba is unable to
demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious. 8
                                    *        *         *
        For the foregoing reasons, Otunba’s conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot.

        _____________________
        7
          Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Jimenez v. Wood Cnty., 660 F.3d
841, 847 (5th Cir. 2011)).
        8
         See United States v. Smith, No. 22-10795, 2023 WL 5814936, at *3 (5th Cir. Sept.
8, 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that the defendant failed to establish plain
error when challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under Bruen “given the lack of
binding authority deeming § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional”), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 701
(2024).

                                             4