Court Opinion

ID: 9918458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 01:00:40.658737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:39.362727
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10292         Document: 00517031834             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10292
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               January 12, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Troy Dontae Williams,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-119-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Troy Dontae Williams pleaded guilty of possession of a firearm by a
   felon. He argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in
   accepting his guilty plea because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) infringes the Second
   Amendment.            He also reurges his argument that § 922(g)(1) is
   unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority under the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10292      Document: 00517031834          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                    No. 23-10292

   Commerce Clause, and the district court therefore misadvised him of the
   nature of his offense and erroneously accepted the factual basis for his guilty
   plea, in violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G),
   11(b)(3).
          Because Williams did not raise his Second Amendment challenge
   before the district court, we review it for plain error. See United States v.
   Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014). To prevail under this standard,
   he must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial
   rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this
   showing, we have discretion to correct the error but should do so only if it
   “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings.”     Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration
   omitted).
          Williams’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 recently rejected the argument, on plain error review, that
   § 922(g)(1) infringes the Second Amendment under Bruen. See United States
   v. Jones, ___ F.4th ___, No. 23-10198, 2023 WL 8074295, at *1-2 (5th Cir.
   Nov. 21, 2023). Williams’s Bruen contention therefore is unavailing.
          We have consistently upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as “a
   valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.” United
   States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
   Williams correctly concedes that his Commerce Clause challenge is
   foreclosed. Because Williams’s Rule 11 challenges are predicated on his
   Commerce Clause challenge, it follows that the district court did not violate
   Rule 11.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2