Court Opinion

ID: 9941190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 01:01:24.76091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:19.833636
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50212         Document: 00517066010             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50212
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               February 15, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Alberto Jimenez Pastrana,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-699-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Alberto Jimenez Pastrana challenges his guilty-plea conviction for
   possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   § 922(g)(1) (prohibiting felons in possession). He contends for the first time
   on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment and the
   Commerce Clause.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50212      Document: 00517066010           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                     No. 23-50212

          Pastrana (as he concedes) did not preserve his two constitutional
   claims in district court. Because he failed to do so, review is only for plain
   error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012).
   Under that standard, Pastrana 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, we have 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).
          Pastrana’s Second Amendment contention is grounded in New York
   State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022) (announcing rule for
   assessing whether statute infringes Second Amendment). As our court very
   recently held: on plain-error review, this claims fails under Bruen. United
   States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023).
          Additionally, Pastrana’s assertion that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional
   because it exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority is, as he concedes,
   also foreclosed by our precedent. United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143,
   145–46 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejecting Commerce Clause contention because our
   court is “bound by our prior precedents and . . . [the] issue is foreclosed”).
   He raises the issue solely to preserve it for possible further review.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2