Court Opinion

ID: 9838960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-09 00:00:27.246818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.144416
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20127         Document: 00516888751             Page: 1       Date Filed: 09/08/2023

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

                                       No. 23-20127                          FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                September 8, 2023
                                     ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Matthew Steven Hackney,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CR-219-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Matthew Steven Hackney pleaded guilty to four child pornography
   offenses and now appeals two of those convictions for production of child
   pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and possession of child pornography
   under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Relying on published and unpublished
   authority from this court, he concedes that relief on the issues he asserts is

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20127      Document: 00516888751           Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                     No. 23-20127

   foreclosed, and he raises the issues to preserve them for further review. We
   dispense with further briefing and affirm.
          First, Hackney asserts that the factual basis supporting his guilty pleas
   to those two counts is insufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
   11 because he did not admit facts establishing the interstate commerce
   elements of § 2251(a) and § 2252A(a)(5)(B) as he contends those statutes
   should be construed based on Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014).
   Alternatively, he raises a constitutional argument based on National
   Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). Reviewing
   only for plain error, see United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir.
   2010), Hackney’s arguments with respect to his convictions under both
   statutes are unavailing, see United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th
   Cir. 2019).
          In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motions for summary
   affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief
   are DENIED. See United States v. Coleman, 817 F.3d 907, 909 (5th Cir.
   2016). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           2