Court Opinion

ID: 9911498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 01:00:41.845828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:22.631237
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20577        Document: 00517007586             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023

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

                                      No. 22-20577                           FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                 December 19, 2023
                                    ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Darius James Francis,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-85-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Darius James Francis pled guilty to two counts of possession of a
   firearm by a felon (Counts One and Three) and one count of possession of
   ammunition by a felon (Count Two), all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 22-20577        Document: 00517007586             Page: 2      Date Filed: 12/19/2023

                                         No. 22-20577

   and punishable under former 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). 1 The State of Texas also
   charged Francis with manslaughter, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,
   and possession of a firearm by a felon. His presentence report (“PSR”)
   determined that these charges were relevant conduct to Count One.
   Accordingly, the PSR provided that the district court should order Francis’s
   federal sentence to run concurrently with the anticipated sentences on his
   state charges pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). In addition, Francis was
   charged with two unrelated state offenses for evading arrest and aggravated
   robbery.
           The district court sentenced Francis to a total of 97 months of
   imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Because the judgment
   was silent as to whether the federal sentence would run concurrent with or
   consecutive to the anticipated state sentences, Francis’s federal sentence
   presumably will run consecutively to any state sentences. See 18 U.S.C.
   § 3584(a); United States v. Ochoa, 977 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 2020). Francis
   now appeals.
           First, Francis argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional
   because it violates the Second Amendment according to New York State Rifle
   & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and exceeds Congress’s power
   under the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. He correctly
   acknowledges, however, that his Commerce Clause claim is foreclosed by
   United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013).
           Francis additionally concedes that plain error review applies to his
   arguments because he did not raise them in the district court. See United
   States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1994). Francis therefore must

           _____________________
           1
            Since the date of the offenses, Section 924(a)(2) has been amended and recodified
   at 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8).

                                                   2
Case: 22-20577      Document: 00517007586          Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/19/2023

                                    No. 22-20577

   show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial
   rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a
   showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it
   “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings.” Id. (citations omitted). There can be no plain error here
   because no binding precedent explicitly holds that Section 922(g)(1) is
   unconstitutional and it is not clear that Bruen dictates such a result. See
   United States v. Jones, -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 8074295 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).
          Next, Francis challenges the consecutive nature of his sentence as
   procedurally and substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Candia,
   454 F.3d 468, 472–73 (5th Cir. 2006). Francis preserved this argument by
   requesting a concurrent sentence, so we review the district court’s
   sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Reyes-Lugo,
   238 F.3d 305, 307–08 (5th Cir. 2001).
          Francis claims that the district court misunderstood the law and
   procedurally erred by failing to consider that a state judgment ordering
   concurrent sentences would be nonbinding on federal authorities. See Leal v.
   Tombone, 341 F.3d 427, 429 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2003); Causey v. Civiletti, 621
   F.2d 691, 693–94 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
   51 (2007). A federal sentence is not unreasonable merely because it conflicts
   with a state judgment. See Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 244 (2012).
          In light of the PSR and the exchange between the district court and
   counsel at the sentencing hearing, Francis fails to show that the district court
   misunderstood its authority or committed procedural error. See United States
   v. Eustice, 952 F.3d 686, 692 (2020); Candia, 454 F.3d at 478; see also Setser,
   566 U.S. at 236–37. To the extent that Francis contends that the state court
   will impose a concurrent sentence that the Bureau of Prisons cannot or will

                                              3
Case: 22-20577      Document: 00517007586          Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/19/2023

                                    No. 22-20577

   not credit, his argument is “premature and speculative.” United States v.
   Aparicio, 963 F.3d 470, 478 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Finally, Francis challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
   sentence. See Candia, 454 F.3d at 473. In this case, the district court adopted
   the PSR, listened to the parties’ arguments and Francis’s allocution, and
   considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining the sentence. See
   Eustice, 952 F.3d at 692; Candia, 454 F.3d at 478. The district court was “in
   a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a).”
   United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008).
   Accordingly, the district court’s consecutive sentence was substantively
   reasonable.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             4