Court Opinion

ID: 9926210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 01:00:37.775433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:11.163939
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11229        Document: 00517041822             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/23/2024

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

                                      No. 22-11229
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                January 23, 2024
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Gilbert Joseph Carrasco,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:21-CR-46-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Gilbert Joseph Carrasco was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to
   distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
   possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possession of a
   firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced him to a total of
   600 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11229       Document: 00517041822           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/23/2024

                                      No. 22-11229

   On appeal, Carrasco argues for the first time that we should vacate his
   conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because the statute is
   unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597
   U.S. 1 (2022), and that § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s authority under the
   Commerce Clause.
          Our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
   129, 135 (2009). To prevail on plain error review, Carrasco must show a
   forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
   See id. If he makes this showing, this court has the discretion to correct the
   error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets
   omitted).
          Carrasco’s Bruen argument is unavailing. We recently rejected the
   argument, considered under the plain error standard, that § 922(g)(1)
   infringes the Second Amendment under Bruen. See United States v. Jones,
   ___ F.4th ___, No. 23-10198, 2023 WL 8074295, 1-2 (5th Cir. Nov. 21,
   2023). Next, Carrasco correctly concedes that his argument that § 922(g)
   infringes the Commerce Clause is foreclosed. We have consistently upheld
   the constitutionality of § 922(g) as “a valid exercise of Congress’s authority
   under the Commerce Clause.” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145
   (5th Cir. 2013).       Therefore, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.
          Lastly, Carrasco moves for the appointment of new counsel, arguing
   that his counsel was ineffective. Carrasco has not shown that there is a
   conflict of interest or that the interests of justice require relief of counsel. See
   Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act § 5(B);
   see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). Further, he does not show the existence of a
   record sufficient to permit a fair review of any potential ineffective assistance

                                            2
Case: 22-11229      Document: 00517041822           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/23/2024

                                     No. 22-11229

   of counsel claims. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
   The motion is therefore DENIED.

                                          3