Court Opinion

ID: 9914172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 19:00:35.950303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:27.246243
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10214         Document: 00517016581             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10214
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              December 29, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   James Edward Johnson,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-276-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          In 2009, James Johnson pled guilty of three felony burglary counts.
   After his release from prison, Johnson pled guilty of another felony burglary
   in 2011. As a convicted felon, Johnson is barred by federal law from
   possessing a firearm or ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Nonetheless,
   while on parole for this latest burglary conviction in 2022, Johnson brought a

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10214        Document: 00517016581        Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 23-10214

   handgun with him into an Arlington, Texas nightclub. After Johnson was
   asked to leave the club because his attire violated its rules, a fight ensued.
   Johnson fired his weapon into the crowd, injuring a clubgoer. A security
   guard then punched Johnson, so Johnson shot the guard several times.
   Johnson then fled the scene with a friend. Subsequently, a grand jury indicted
   Johnson for possessing five spent shell casings from the shooting in violation
   of § 922(g)(1). Johnson pled guilty, and the district court imposed a 120-
   month sentence.
          Johnson appealed, arguing that the district court erred in three ways
   by accepting his guilty plea. First, Johnson contends there was an insufficient
   factual basis for his plea because § 922(g)(1)’s “in or affecting commerce”
   element, “correctly interpreted,” requires more than the mere past
   movement of his ammunition in interstate commerce. But, as Johnson
   acknowledges, our precedent holds otherwise. See United States v. Rawls, 85
   F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996).
          Second, Johnson contends that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s
   authority under the Commerce Clause and that the district court erred by
   failing to advise him of that fact. But Johnson recognizes that this challenge
   is also foreclosed by our caselaw. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143
   (5th Cir. 2013).
          Finally, Johnson argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
   Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.
   Ct. 2111 (2022). But Johnson concedes that our review is for plain error, and,
   in a recently published opinion, we held that § 922(g)(1) is not clearly or
   obviously unconstitutional under Bruen. See United States v. Jones, --- F.4th -
   ---, No. 23-10198, 2023 WL 8074295, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).
   Accordingly, all of Johnson’s arguments fail.
                                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                         2