Court Opinion

ID: 9948706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 19:01:32.073505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:48.187904
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10859            Document: 44-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/07/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10859
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  March 7, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Tayron Deshawn Thomas,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:22-CR-65-1
                   ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Tayron Deshawn Thomas appeals his conviction of possession of a
firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Thomas contends for
the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in
light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17
(2022), and exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

      _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10859        Document: 44-1         Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                    No. 23-10859

Thomas concedes that this court’s review is for plain error. To demonstrate
plain error, Thomas must show a clear or obvious error that affected his
substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
       The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. As
the Government contends, Thomas’s argument that the district court plainly
erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v.
Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we held that any error
was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent holding that
§ 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional and it was unclear that Bruen dictated such
a result. Id. Moreover, Thomas correctly concedes that his Commerce
Clause challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733
F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).
       Where “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
case,” summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is
DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         2