Court Opinion

ID: 9941044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 19:00:43.130038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:10.760760
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10639        Document: 00517064604             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

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

                                      No. 23-10639
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                 February 15, 2024
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   David Thomas Overman,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:22-CR-90-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         David Thomas Overman appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a
   felon in possession of a firearm. Overman contends that the district court
   erred by accepting his guilty plea because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) requires more
   than the mere prior movement of a firearm in interstate commerce to satisfy
   the statute’s jurisdictional nexus; exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10639      Document: 00517064604           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                     No. 23-10639

   power; and was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s decision
   in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He
   further argues that the district court plainly erred by failing to inform him,
   under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G), of § 922(g)’s
   unconstitutionality.
          Because Overman did not object to the district court’s acceptance of
   his guilty plea, let alone on any of the bases he pleads on appeal, review is for
   plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009); United
   States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). To show plain error,
   Overman must, relevantly, identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or
   obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his
   substantial rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Overman fails to make the requisite showing. He cites no binding
   authority for his arguments that satisfying § 922(g)’s interstate-commerce
   nexus requires more than a simple admission that the firearm in question
   travelled in interstate commerce—a fact he admitted in pleading guilty—or
   that § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. A
   “lack of binding authority is often dispositive in the plain-error context.”
   United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). To the contrary,
   both this court and the Supreme Court have rejected such arguments. See
   Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977); United States v.
   Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Overman similarly cites no
   authority from this court or the Supreme Court holding § 922(g) to be
   unconstitutional, either facially or as applied, in light of Bruen. See Gonzalez,
   792 F.3d at 538. Thus, whether the district court erred in light of Bruen is, at
   best, subject to reasonable dispute. “By definition, that is not plain error.”
   United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 550 (5th Cir. 2012). We recently
   applied this standard directly to § 922(g) holding that applying this statute is
   not plain error. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023).

                                          2
Case: 23-10639      Document: 00517064604          Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                    No. 23-10639

          Lastly, Overman cites no authority requiring a district court, under
   Rule 11(b)(1)(G), to advise a defendant of the actual or potential
   unconstitutionality of the statute to which he is pleading. See Gonzalez, 792
   F.3d at 538. Rule 11(b)(1)(G)’s requirement that defendants understand the
   “nature of the charge” against them “refers to the elements of the offense.”
   United States v. Lujano-Perez, 274 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2001). In pleading
   guilty, Overman confirmed that he understood the elements of a § 922(g)
   offense. He thus fails to show error, let alone clear or obvious error.
          We AFFIRM the judgment.

                                          3