Court Opinion

ID: 9931294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:01:17.000005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:02.253986
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40365        Document: 00517059997             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024

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

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               February 8, 2024
                                      No. 23-40365                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Miguel Salinas, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:22-CR-368-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Miguel Salinas, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon
   in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Salinas contends that his
   guilty plea is invalid because (1) § 922(g) was rendered unconstitutional by
   the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
   Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and (2) satisfying § 922(g)’s interstate-nexus

          _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40365        Document: 00517059997           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                       No. 23-40365

   element requires more than an admission that a firearm was manufactured
   outside of, and thus imported into, the state in which it was possessed.
             Because Salinas did not object to the district court’s acceptance of his
   guilty plea, let alone on either of the bases he raises on appeal, we review only
   for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009); United
   States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). To show plain error,
   Salinas must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather
   than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.
   See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he satisfies the first three requirements, we
   may, in our discretion, remedy the error if the error “seriously affect[s] the
   fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
             Salinas fails to make the requisite showing. He cites no binding
   authority from this court or the Supreme Court holding § 922(g) to be
   unconstitutional, either facially or as applied, in light of Bruen. A “lack of
   binding authority is often dispositive in the plain-error context.” United
   States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). Absent such authority,
   the unconstitutionality of § 922(g) in light of Bruen is neither clear nor
   obvious. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023).
             Similarly, Salinas cites no binding authority for his argument that
   satisfying § 922(g)’s interstate-commerce nexus requires more than an
   admission that the relevant firearm was manufactured outside of the state in
   which it was possessed. See Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 538. To the contrary, the
   Supreme Court has held that § 922(g)’s interstate-commerce nexus requires
   no more than “the minimal nexus that the firearm[s] have been, at some time,
   in interstate commerce.” Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575
   (1977).     Salinas admitted that the firearm he possessed in Texas was
   manufactured outside of Texas, meaning that the gun must, at some point,

                                            2
Case: 23-40365          Document: 00517059997       Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                     No. 23-40365

   have been in interstate commerce. The district court thus did not clearly or
   obviously err in accepting his guilty plea. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Accordingly, the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court
   is in all respects
                                                                   AFFIRMED.

                                          3