Court Opinion

ID: 9947980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 01:00:33.893709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:49.522075
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50204           Document: 65-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/05/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-50204
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                                  March 5, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Felix Olivas,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:22-CR-244-1
                  ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Felix Olivas appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Olivas contends that his
guilty plea is invalid because § 922(g) was rendered unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power; and

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50204        Document: 65-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                 No. 23-50204

requires more than the mere prior movement of a firearm in interstate
commerce to satisfy the statute’s jurisdictional nexus. Olivas concedes that
the last two issues are foreclosed.
       Because Olivas did not object to the district court’s acceptance of his
guilty plea, let alone on any of the bases he raises on appeal, we review only
for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009); United
States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). To show plain error,
Olivas must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather
than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.
See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he satisfies the first three requirements, we
may, in our discretion, remedy the error if the error “seriously affect[s] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
       Olivas fails to make the requisite showing. He cites no binding
authority from this court or the Supreme Court holding § 922(g) to be
unconstitutional, either facially or as applied, in light of Bruen. A “lack of
binding authority is often dispositive in the plain-error context.” United
States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). As such, we have
rejected Bruen-based challenges to § 922(g) on plain error review. See United
States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023). Olivas similarly cites no
binding authority for his arguments that satisfying § 922(g)’s interstate-
commerce nexus requires more than a simple admission that the firearm in
question travelled in interstate commerce—a fact he admitted in pleading
guilty—or that § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce
Clause. See Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 538. To the contrary, both this court and
the Supreme Court have rejected such arguments. See Scarborough v. United
States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977); Jones, 88 F.4th at 573; United States v.
Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

                                       2
Case: 23-50204   Document: 65-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                          No. 23-50204

     The judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                  3