Court Opinion

ID: 9960765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 00:00:38.119995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:51.819885
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50653            Document: 64-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/16/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                  _____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-50653
                               consolidated with                                   FILED
                                   No. 23-50656                                April 16, 2024
                                 _____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Travis Wayne Lovings,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                    USDC Nos. 7:20-CR-199-1, 7:23-CR-27-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginson, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Travis Wayne Lovings challenges his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 1 He argues that 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the Second
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
       1
         Lovings’s supervised release for an earlier conviction was revoked at the same
time. As he does not challenge on appeal the revocation or sentence imposed, any such
challenge is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Case: 23-50653        Document: 64-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/16/2024

                                   23-50653
                               c/w No. 23-50656

Amendment in view of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S.
1 (2022). As Lovings concedes, because he did not raise this issue in the
district court, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 88
F.4th 571, 572 (5th Cir. 2023) (per curiam), cert. denied, No. 23-6769, 2024
WL 1143799 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024). He also argues that § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress under the
Commerce Clause or, in the alternative, that the statute should be construed
to require a closer connection to interstate commerce than alleged or
admitted in this case. However, as he correctly concedes, this argument is
foreclosed. See Jones, 88 F.4th at 573; United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d
424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
       The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary
affirmance based on Jones, asserting that Lovings’s plain-error challenges to
the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) based on Bruen and under the Commerce
Clause are foreclosed by binding precedent.          Lovings responded that
summary affirmance is not appropriate because Jones did not explicitly state
that the issue of whether § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment in light
of Bruen was foreclosed on plain-error review, merely that any error was not
plain given the unsettled law and lack of binding precedent.
       Summary affirmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the
parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). In Jones, we considered whether
§ 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment in light of Bruen and concluded
Jones had “failed to demonstrate that the district court’s application of
§ 922(g)(1) constitutes plain error.” Jones, 88 F.4th at 574; see id. at 572-74.
Lovings’s argument is foreclosed by Jones, and his refusal to concede the
point does not preclude summary affirmance. See, e.g., Groendyke Transp.,

                                       2
Case: 23-50653      Document: 64-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/16/2024

                                 23-50653
                             c/w No. 23-50656

406 F.2d at 1160 n.2 (summarily disposing of the case despite “strenuous”
opposition).
      Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and
the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s
alternative motion to view sealed documents and for an extension of time is
DENIED.

                                     3