Court Opinion

ID: 9949445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 18:00:51.696861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:25.591948
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30575            Document: 47-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/11/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-30575
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                               FILED
                                                                         March 11, 2024
                                  ____________
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                      Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Chaves Hodges,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 5:22-CR-171-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Chaves Hodges appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession
of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hodges
contends for the first time on appeal that Section 922(g)(1) violates the
Second Amendment, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). Hodges concedes this court’s review is for plain
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 23-30575        Document: 47-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/11/2024

                                  No. 23-30575

error. To demonstrate plain error, Hodges must show a clear or obvious
error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
129, 135 (2009).
       The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. As
the Government contends, Hodges’s argument that the district court plainly
erred because Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United
States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we held that
any error was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent
finding Section 922(g)(1) unconstitutional, and it was unclear whether Bruen
dictated such a result. Id.
       Where “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
case,” summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is
DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                       2