Court Opinion

ID: 9555333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 18:02:57.534203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:22.053028
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11199         Document: 00516854623             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/11/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                       No. 22-11199                              August 11, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Brandon Keith Wright,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:18-CR-635-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Brandon Keith Wright appeals his conviction for production of child
   pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Relying on the Supreme
   Court’s decision in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), he challenges
   the sufficiency of the factual basis for his conviction and argues that the
   district court erred by accepting a guilty plea based on a factual basis that
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11199      Document: 00516854623          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-11199

   failed to admit an offense. The Government contends that Wright is
   precluded from raising his claim by the appeal waiver in his plea agreement.
   It argues that, while Wright frames his argument as a challenge to the factual
   basis, it is really a challenge to the constitutionality of § 2251(a), which he
   waived in his plea agreement. We pretermit consideration of the applicability
   of the appeal waiver and reach the merits. See United States v. De Leon, 915
   F.3d 386, 389 n.2 (5th Cir. 2019). Even if Wright did not waive his
   arguments, they do not survive plain-error review.
          It is well-settled that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to
   prohibit local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials
   used in the production had been moved in interstate commerce. See United
   States v. McCall, 833 F.3d 560, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v.
   Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kallestad, 236
   F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). Wright concedes that the cell phone used
   in his crime moved in interstate or foreign commerce and that his argument
   on this point is foreclosed by current law. See McCall, 833 F.3d at 564-65.
          This court has also previously rejected Wright’s alternative argument,
   based on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519
   (2012), that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only
   commercial activity and not activity that is tenuously related to interstate
   commerce. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013).
   Under the rule of orderliness, we are “not at liberty to overrule our settled
   precedent because the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation did
   not overrule it.” Id.
          Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is
   DENIED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         2