Court Opinion

ID: 9411556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 00:01:51.13018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.476383
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10943         Document: 00516835235             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10943
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 26, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Christian Lamar Porter,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:20-CR-49-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Christian Lamar Porter pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a
   firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
   924(a)(2). Relying on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
   567 U.S. 519 (2012), he argues for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1)
   exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and is

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10943      Document: 00516835235          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                    No. 22-10943

   thus unconstitutional. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for
   summary affirmance and an alternative request for an extension of time to file
   its brief.
           Porter correctly concedes that his arguments challenging the
   constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar,
   733 F.3d 143, 145–46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d
   513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.
   1999). He raises the arguments to preserve them for further review.
           Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion
   for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an
   extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district
   court is AFFIRMED.

                                             2