Court Opinion

ID: 9961509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 00:00:48.648303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:51.167205
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10421           Document: 76-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/18/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-10421
                                 Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                 ____________                                 April 18, 2024
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Austin Wayne Massey,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:22-CR-88-1
                  ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Austin Wayne Massey pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after
felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he
contends that § 922(g)(1) exceeds the power of Congress under the

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10421        Document: 76-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/18/2024

                                  No. 23-10421

Commerce Clause and violates the Second Amendment in light of New York
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
       Because Massey did not raise either of these issues in the district
court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414,
419 (5th Cir. 2014). To demonstrate plain error, Massey must show a clear
or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, this court may
correct the error but should do so only if the error “seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
       Massey’s commerce clause argument is foreclosed by precedent, as
we have “consistently upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).” United
States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013); see United States v. Jones, 88
F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. Mar. 18,
2024) (No. 23-6769). Moreover, applying plain error review, we recently
rejected an unpreserved Bruen-based challenge to the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment. See Jones, 88 F.4th at 573-74.
Accordingly, Massey fails to demonstrate reversible plain error.
       AFFIRMED.

                                       2