Court Opinion

ID: 9389698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 00:00:23.028349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.038462
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50365         Document: 00516725161             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50365
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  April 25, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Caleb Bryant Hickcox,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:21-CR-361-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Caleb Bryant Hickcox pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a
   felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The
   district court sentenced him to 63 months of imprisonment and three years
   of supervised release.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50365      Document: 00516725161           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/25/2023

                                     No. 22-50365

          Hickcox argues that his § 922(g)(1) conviction is unconstitutional
   under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v.
   Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Because Hickcox did not challenge the
   constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) before the district court, we review only for
   plain error. See United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1994).
   To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or
   obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556
   U.S. 129, 135 (2009). An error is not clear or obvious where an issue is
   disputed or unresolved, or where there is an absence of controlling authority.
   United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2009). “Even
   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) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Because there is no binding precedent explicitly holding
   that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and because it is not clear that Bruen
   dictates such a result, Hickcox is unable to demonstrate an error that is clear
   or obvious. See Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d at 230-31.
          Hickcox also seeks to preserve the argument that § 922(g)(1) is
   unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce
   Clause. As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. De
   Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d
   424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Finally, Hickcox argues that his 63-month sentence is substantively
   unreasonable. Our review is for abuse of discretion. See Holguin-Hernandez
   v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
   46-47, 49-51 (2007). Hickcox has not shown that the district court did not
   account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
   significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error in balancing
   the sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th

                                              2
Case: 22-50365     Document: 00516725161           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/25/2023

                                    No. 22-50365

   Cir. 2013). The district court reviewed and adopted the presentence report,
   considered Hickcox’s mitigating arguments, and determined that an above-
   guidelines sentence was appropriate because of the nature and circumstances
   of his offense. His argument that the district court should have weighed the
   sentencing factors differently “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.”
   United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016); see also United
   States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
          AFFIRMED.

                                             3