Court Opinion

ID: 9966322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:00:40.934578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.086379
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30503           Document: 61-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024

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

                                   No. 23-30503                                          FILED
                                 Summary Calendar                                     May 6, 2024
                                 ____________                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                         Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Allen Gray,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:20-CR-84-2
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Allen Gray received a within-Guidelines 180-months’ sentence after
pleading guilty to two counts of possession with the intent to distribute a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)–(D);
two counts of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and two counts of being a

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30503         Document: 61-1        Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                  No. 23-30503

felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2).
       Gray presents two issues regarding his convictions and one regarding
his sentence. For the former, he asserts: those under § 922(g)(1) violate the
Second Amendment in the light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022) (announcing rule for assessing whether statute
infringes Second Amendment); and those relating to the possession of a
firearm (felon in possession and possession in furtherance of drug-trafficking
crime) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. For the latter, he asserts: his
sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
       Because Gray did not preserve any of these issues in district court,
review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537,
546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Gray must show a forfeited plain
error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute)
that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the
reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s]
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.
(citation omitted). He fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error for
each of the three issues.
       Gray’s      contention   that   his    §   922(g)(1)    convictions    are
unconstitutional in the light of Bruen is foreclosed by United States v. Jones,
88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, No. 23-6769, 2024 WL
1143799 (U.S. 18 Mar. 2024). (He raises the issue to preserve it for possible
further review.)
       His contention that the court violated his double-jeopardy rights by
imposing multiple sentences based on the same firearm is, likewise,

                                        2
Case: 23-30503        Document: 61-1       Page: 3      Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                 No. 23-30503

foreclosed. See United States v. Berry, 977 F.2d 915, 919 (5th Cir. 1992)
(concluding “use or carrying of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense”
is “obviously is a crime Congress treated as separate and apart from the
threat posed by a felon in possession of a firearm”).
       Regarding the sentence, the court considered Gray’s mitigation
assertions, the record, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors before
concluding a sentence at the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range was appropriate. As noted, Gray fails to show the requisite clear-or-
obvious error in his presumptively reasonable, within-Guidelines sentence.
See, e.g., United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d 969, 978–79 (5th Cir. 2019)
(“Under [plain-error] (or any) standard, [defendant] doesn’t overcome the
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness of a within-guideline sentence like
his.” (citation omitted)).
       AFFIRMED.

                                       3