Court Opinion

ID: 9893555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 18:00:38.339042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:28.698702
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30152        Document: 00516946913             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/27/2023

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

                                      No. 23-30152                                   FILED
                                                                               October 27, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Leslie Fulwiler,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 3:22-CR-130-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Leslie Fulwiler pleaded guilty to one count of possession of firearms
   by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In accordance with the
   plea agreement, the remaining count of his indictment was dismissed. The
   district court sentenced him above his guidelines range to 60 months of im-
   prisonment, to run concurrently to any sentence imposed for a pending,

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30152      Document: 00516946913           Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/27/2023

                                     No. 23-30152

   related state charge. The district court also imposed three years of super-
   vised release. Fulwiler filed a timely notice of appeal.
          On appeal, Fulwiler raises two issues. The first one is a challenge to
   his conviction on the ground that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
   Amendment pursuant to New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen,
   142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). He admits that he failed to raise this argument to the
   district court, accordingly, we review this challenge under plain error. Under
   the plain error standard, Fulwiler must show a forfeited error that is clear or
   obvious and affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556
   U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court should exercise
   its discretion to correct the error if the error seriously affects the fairness,
   integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Rosales-Mireles v.
   United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1906 (2018).
          He appears to be making a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). Since Bruen,
   we have not ruled on a facial or as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) in our
   circuit, and no circuit has granted a facial challenge, though they have split
   on as-applied challenges. Compare Range v. Att’y Gen., 69 F.4th 96, 98, 106
   (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc) (finding in favor of the defendant in a “narrow”
   decision on an as-applied constitutional challenge “only as applied to him”)
   with United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495, 501–02 (8th Cir. 2023) (denying
   an as-applied challenged by a “non-violent” drug felon); Vincent v. Garland,
   80 F.4th 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2023) (following its pre-Bruen precedent that
   “upheld the constitutionality of the federal ban for any convicted felon’s
   possession of a firearm” in the context of a challenge based on non-violent
   felons); see also United States v. Cunningham, 70 F.4th 502, 506 (8th Cir.
   2023) (“The longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is
   constitutional, and the district court properly denied the motion to
   dismiss.”); Atkinson v. Garland, 70 F.4th 1018, 1019–20 (7th Cir. 2023)
   (remanding to the district court to “undertake the Bruen analysis in the first

                                          2
Case: 23-30152      Document: 00516946913          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/27/2023

                                    No. 23-30152

   instance”). As a result of this lack of clear or obvious error, our court has
   repeatedly rejected plain error challenges to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen in
   recent unpublished opinions. See, e.g., United States v. Roy, No. 22-10677,
   2023 WL 3073266, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam),
   cert. denied, No. 23-5188, 2023 WL 6378839 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2023); United
   States v. Pickett, No. 22-11006, 2023 WL 3193281, at *1 (5th Cir. May 2, 2023)
   (unpublished) (per curiam); United States v. Washington, No. 22-10574, 2023
   WL 5275013, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam);
   United States v. Smith, No. 22-10795, 2023 WL 5814936, at *1–3 (5th Cir.
   Sep. 8, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam); United States v. Racliff, No. 22-
   10409, 2023 WL 5972049, at *1 (5th Cir. Sep. 14, 2023) (unpublished) (per
   curiam). We join in those decisions and find a lack of clear of obvious error.
   Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
          Fulwiler’s other appellate argument is a challenge to his sentence. We
   conclude that he preserved his substantive reasonableness challenge by
   advocating at sentencing for a sentence below the guidelines range. See
   Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020).
   Accordingly, the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is reviewed for
   abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
   district court abuses its discretion in imposing an above-guidelines sentence
   if the sentence “does not account for a factor that should have received
   significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
   factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing
   factors.” United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180, 189 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Fulwiler argues that his above-guidelines sentence, 60 months, which
   is 19 months above the top of his guidelines range, is substantively
   unreasonable. Our “review for substantive reasonableness is highly
   deferential, because the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts
   and judge their import under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular

                                          3
Case: 23-30152         Document: 00516946913             Page: 4      Date Filed: 10/27/2023

                                         No. 23-30152

   defendant.” Lavalais, 960 F.3d at 189 (quotation omitted). The district
   court’s comments at sentencing reflect that it considered Fulwiler’s
   sentencing memorandum, arguments for a lesser sentence, and the
   mitigating facts he raised.          Nonetheless, the district court was more
   persuaded by Fulwiler’s criminal history and likelihood to recidivate, factors
   that the district court was permitted to consider. See Lavalais, 960 F.3d at
   189. Giving due deference to the district court’s sentencing decision, we
   conclude that Fulwiler has failed to show that his sentence is substantively
   unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence.
                    AFFIRMED. 1

          _____________________
          1
              The motion to place appeal in abeyance is denied as moot.

                                               4