Court Opinion

ID: 9891592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 00:00:36.416755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.704875
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10081        Document: 00516936006             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10081
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               October 18, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Gary Von Bennett,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-427-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Gary Von Bennett pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a
   felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The
   district court sentenced him to 108 months of imprisonment and three years
   of supervised release. Bennett contends that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional
   because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and that

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10081     Document: 00516936006           Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                    No. 23-10081

   § 922(g) should be construed to require either recent movement of a firearm
   across state lines or movement of a firearm across state lines in response to
   the defendant’s conduct.      However, he correctly concedes that these
   arguments are foreclosed by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977),
   and United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013), and he merely
   raises these issues to preserve them for further review. The Government has
   moved for summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to
   file a brief.
           Because summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion
   for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative
   motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district
   court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         2