Court Opinion

ID: 9914777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 01:00:35.796493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:27.749253
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10234         Document: 00517018826             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/02/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10234
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                January 2, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Darrion Murray,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-647-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Darrion Murray appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession of a
   firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
          As part of his written plea agreement, Murray waived his right to
   appeal his conviction or sentence, except to directly appeal a sentence
   exceeding the statutory maximum or resulting from an arithmetic error, to

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10234        Document: 00517018826        Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/02/2024

                                    No. 23-10234

   challenge the voluntariness of the plea or waiver, or to bring claims of
   ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court sentenced Murray to 105
   months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Murray
   timely appealed.
          On appeal, he argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it
   (1) exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and (2) violates
   the Second Amendment. He also argues that the district court violated
   Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by not informing him that § 922(g) is
   unconstitutional. But Murray didn’t raise these issues to the district court,
   so we review them for plain error only. See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d
   414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014). To show plain error, Murray must demonstrate a
   clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we may correct
   the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
          As a preliminary issue, the Government seeks to enforce Murray’s
   appeal waiver and claims that his arguments are barred by it. Murray argues
   that the waiver does not prevent him from challenging the constitutionality
   of his statute of conviction. But because Murray’s appeal is “easily resolved
   on the merits,” we need not resolve the appeal-waiver question. United States
   v. Graves, 908 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Murray first argues that § 922(g) is unconstitutional because it
   exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. But he concedes
   that this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143,
   145–46 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426
   (5th Cir. 2020).
          Second, Murray argues that § 922(g) violates the Second Amendment
   under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). This

                                             2
Case: 23-10234      Document: 00517018826           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/02/2024

                                     No. 23-10234

   argument is foreclosed, too. In a recently published opinion, we held that
   § 922(g)(1) is not clearly or obviously unconstitutional under Bruen. United
   States v. Jones, No. 23-10198, 2023 WL 8074295, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 21,
   2023) (per curiam).
          Finally, Murray argues that by not informing him that § 922(g) was
   unconstitutional, the district court did not advise him of the nature of the
   charge against him as required by Rule 11. “Rule 11’s requirement that
   defendants understand the ‘nature of the charge’ against them refers to the
   elements of the offense.” United States v. Lujano-Perez, 274 F.3d 219, 224
   (5th Cir. 2001). “To satisfy this requirement, the court must have a colloquy
   with the defendant that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
   defendant understood the nature of the charge.” United States v. Jones, 969
   F.3d 192, 198 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          As we recently explained in Jones, there is no “binding precedent
   holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, and . . . it is unclear that Bruen
   dictates such a result.” 2023 WL 8074295, at *2. So the district court had no
   duty to inform Murray that § 922(g) is unconstitutional. The record reflects
   that the district court complied with its obligation to ensure that Murray
   understood the nature of the charge against him. Thus, the district court did
   not commit any error—plain or otherwise—by not advising Murray that
   § 922(g) is unconstitutional.
          Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          3