Court Opinion

ID: 9941047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 19:00:45.384909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:11.223222
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10489         Document: 00517064754             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

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

                                       No. 23-10489                                      FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                             February 15, 2024
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Luis Eduardo Baez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-368-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Luis Eduardo Baez pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
   convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues for the first
   time on appeal that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea because
   § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Second
   Amendment. The Government urges that the appeal waiver in Baez’s plea

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10489        Document: 00517064754          Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                      No. 23-10489

   agreement bars consideration of his claims. However, as the appeal waiver
   does not implicate our jurisdiction, and Baez’s substantive issues are easily
   resolved, we pretermit the waiver issue. See United States v. Thompson, 54
   F.4th 849, 851 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230–31
   (5th Cir. 2006).
          Because Baez did not raise his arguments before the district court, we
   review them for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134–
   35 (2009). To show plain error, Baez 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. Id. at 135. If he satisfies the first three
   requirements, we may remedy the error if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
   integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (alteration in
   original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)).
          Baez first argues that the factual basis for his plea failed to establish
   the requisite nexus to interstate commerce, as the statute requires more than
   the mere movement of a firearm in interstate commerce. He further argues
   that § 922(g)(1) unconstitutionally exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers
   under the Commerce Clause.           Baez correctly acknowledges that these
   arguments are foreclosed. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573
   (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Darrington, 351 F.3d 632, 633–34 (5th Cir.
   2003). Baez’s Second Amendment argument is grounded in New York State
   Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which announced a new test
   for assessing whether a statute infringes the Second Amendment. 597 U.S.
   at 17. We have recently rejected the argument, considered under the plain
   error standard, that § 922(g)(1) infringes the Second Amendment under
   Bruen. See, e.g., Jones, 88 F.4th at 573–74. Baez’s Bruen contention is
   therefore unavailing.

                                            2
Case: 23-10489      Document: 00517064754          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                    No. 23-10489

          Finally, Baez contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and
   voluntary and that his due process rights were violated when the district
   court failed to advise him that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional. Federal Rule
   of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G) “requires that defendants understand the
   nature of the charge against them, which ‘refers to the elements of the
   offense.’” United States v. Jones, 969 F.3d 192, 198 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting
   United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 559 (5th Cir. 2002)). “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.’” Id. (quoting Reyes, 300 F.3d at 559). Despite his assertions
   to the contrary, the district court was under no obligation to inform Baez that
   § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because, as discussed above, there is no
   precedent explicitly so holding. Moreover, the record reflects that the
   district court complied with its obligation to ensure that Baez understood the
   nature of the charge against him.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3