Court Opinion

ID: 9941689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 19:01:43.623665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:57.459306
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30597         Document: 00517066364             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/16/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-30597
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               February 16, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Rawtavious Moore,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-292-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Rawtavious Moore appeals his conviction of being a felon in
   possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
   Moore contends for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the
   Second Amendment, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
   Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). Moore concedes that this court’s review is for
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30597        Document: 00517066364         Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                     No. 23-30597

   plain error. To demonstrate plain error, Moore must show a clear or obvious
   error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
   129, 135 (2009).
          The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
   affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. As
   the Government contends, Moore’s argument that the district court plainly
   erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v.
   Jones, 88 F. 4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we held that any error
   was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent holding that
   § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional and it was unclear that Bruen dictated such
   a result. Id. at 574.
          Where “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
   case,” summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
   406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary
   affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is
   DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                           2