Court Opinion

ID: 9391579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 18:00:29.322952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:42.396304
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11006        Document: 00516734148             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/02/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-11006
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 2, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Antonio Deshun Pickett,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:20-CR-435-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Antonio Deshun Pickett pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after
   a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and former
   924(a)(2) (recodified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8)). The district
   court sentenced him to 33-months’ imprisonment and three-years’
   supervised release.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11006      Document: 00516734148            Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                      No. 22-11006

          Pickett claims § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. He did
   raise a constitutional challenge to § 922(g) in district court; but, that
   challenge was based on the Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment.
   Therefore, because Pickett did not raise the latter issue in district court (as
   he concedes), review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard,
   669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Pickett must show a
   forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to
   reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, our court has the
   discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only
   if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
          As noted supra, § 922(g)(1) proscribes, inter alia, possession of a
   firearm after a felony conviction. Pickett contends § 922(g)(1) does not pass
   the historical test announced by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle
   & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022) (providing “government
   must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s
   historical tradition of firearm regulation”), and is therefore unconstitutional.
          As reflected above in the definition of a plain error, an error is not clear
   or obvious where an issue is disputed or unresolved, or where there is an
   absence of controlling authority. See United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581
   F.3d 227, 230–31 (5th Cir. 2009). In fact, “[e]ven where the argument
   requires only extending authoritative precedent, the failure of the district
   court [to do so] cannot be plain error”. Wallace v. Mississippi, 43 F.4th 482,
   500 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Because there is no binding precedent
   holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and it is not clear that Bruen
   dictates such a conclusion, Pickett is unable to demonstrate the requisite
   clear-or-obvious error. See Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d at 230–31; see also
   United States v. Hickcox, No. 22-50365, 2023 WL 3075054, at *1 (5th Cir.

                                           2
Case: 22-11006     Document: 00516734148         Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                  No. 22-11006

   2023) (unpublished) (in considering constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1)
   based on Bruen, holding no plain error because lack of binding precedent);
   United States v. Avila, No. 22-50088, 2022 WL 17832287, at *1–2 (5th Cir.
   2022) (unpublished) (same for challenge to § 922(n)).
         AFFIRMED.

                                        3