Court Opinion

ID: 9931292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:01:15.687089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:42.728306
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11244         Document: 00517060134             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-11244
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               February 8, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Demarcus Deon Staples,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-237-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Demarcus Deon Staples pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a
   convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) (prohibiting felons in
   possession), 924(a)(2) (outlining penalty for knowing violation). He
   contends for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in
   the light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022)

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11244      Document: 00517060134           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                     No. 22-11244

   (announcing rule for assessing whether statute infringes on Second
   Amendment).
          Staples (as he concedes) did not preserve his constitutional claim in
   district court. Because he failed to so do, review is only for plain error. E.g.,
   United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that
   standard, Staples 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).
          Staples cannot show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. United
   States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting plain-error
   challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2