Court Opinion

ID: 9950735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 18:00:46.88823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:33.779427
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10865            Document: 51-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024

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

                                    No. 23-10865
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                   March 14, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar
                                  ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                        Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Rit Tran,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:23-CR-85-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Rit Tran pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to sexual
exploitation of a child for the purpose of producing a visual depiction and
receipt of child pornography. He was sentenced to a total 480 months in
prison and life terms of supervised release. On appeal, Tran challenges only
his conviction for sexual exploitation of a child, arguing for the first time that
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10865         Document: 51-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/14/2024

                                   No. 23-10865

the district court erred by accepting his guilty plea because it was not
supported by a sufficient factual basis and that the statute of conviction
exceeds Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause. The Government
has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time
to file a brief. Because the Government does not invoke the appeal waiver, it
is does not bar this appeal. See United States v. Wiese, 896 F.3d 720, 722 n.1
(5th Cir. 2018).
       Plain error review applies to Tran’s forfeited objection to the factual
basis for his guilty plea. See United States v. Trejo, 601 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir.
2010). We have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to
prohibit local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials
used in the production were moved in interstate commerce. See United States
v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kallestad, 236
F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court’s decision in Bond v.
United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), did not abrogate the holding of these
cases. See United States v. McCall, 833 F.3d 560, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016). As
Tran concedes, he cannot show any error in the district court’s finding that
there was a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea in light of this case law.
See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
       Alternatively, Tran asserts that Dickson and Kallestad were wrongly
decided in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567
U.S. 519 (2012), and that the Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress
to impose federal criminal liability where the defendant’s conduct is
tenuously related to interstate commerce. Under the rule of orderliness, “we
are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent because the Supreme
Court’s decision in National Federation did not overrule it.” United States v.
Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, we are bound by
Kallestad and Dickson, which render Tran’s arguments unavailing. He raises
the arguments to preserve them for further review.

                                        2
Case: 23-10865      Document: 51-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/14/2024

                               No. 23-10865

      Because Tran’s arguments are foreclosed, summary disposition is
appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the
Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the
alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellee brief is
DENIED.

                                     3