Court Opinion

ID: 9391260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 18:00:29.783215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.358106
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10915         Document: 00516732378             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/01/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10915
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                     May 1, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Mark Alan Miller,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-284-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Mark Alan Miller appeals his conviction and sentence for production
   of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Relying on the Supreme Court’s
   decision in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 847-49 (2014), he challenges
   the sufficiency of the factual basis for his conviction and argues that the
   district court erred by accepting a guilty plea based on a factual basis that

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10915      Document: 00516732378           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                     No. 22-10915

   failed to admit an offense.      The Government contends that Miller is
   precluded from raising his claim under the appeal waiver. It argues that while
   Miller frames his argument as a challenge to the factual basis, it is really a
   challenge to the constitutionality of § 2251(a), which he waived by entering a
   plea agreement. We pretermit consideration of the applicability of the appeal
   waiver and reach the merits. See United States v. DeLeon, 915 F.3d 386, 389
   n.2 (5th Cir. 2019). Even if Miller did not waive the error he complains of by
   pleading guilty, the issue does not survive plain-error review.
          It is well-settled that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to
   prohibit local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials
   used in the production had been moved in interstate commerce. See United
   States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Dickson,
   632 F.3d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225,
   226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). Miller concedes that the cell phone used in his crime
   moved in interstate or foreign commerce and that his argument on this point
   is foreclosed by current law. See Bailey, 924 F.3d at 1290.
          This court has also previously rejected Miller’s alternative argument,
   based on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519,
   551 (2019), that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only
   commercial activity and not activity that is tenuously related to interstate
   commerce. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013).
   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.” Id. This court is bound by Dickson and Kallestad and Miller
   is correct that relief under plain-error review is unavailable. See Dickson, 632
   F.3d at 192; Kallestad, 236 F.3d at 228-31.
          Accordingly, the Government’s motion for dismissal is DENIED
   and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                              2