Court Opinion

ID: 9951410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 00:00:35.772512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:02.187750
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10406           Document: 79-1         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/15/2024

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

                                   No. 23-10406
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                             March 15, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                 ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Juan Antonio Ruiz,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:22-CR-47-1
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Juan Antonio Ruiz pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (prohibiting conspiracy),
841(a)(1) (outlawing possession with intent to distribute controlled
substance), 841(b)(1)(A) (setting penalty); and possession of a firearm in

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10406        Document: 79-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                  No. 23-10406

furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (outlining crime and penalty). In challenging the firearm
conviction for the first time on appeal, he contends § 924(c)(1) is
unconstitutional as applied to him in the light of New York State Rifle & Pistol
Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (announcing rule for assessing whether
statute infringes on Second Amendment).
       Our court first addresses Ruiz’ assertion that the district court never
had subject-matter jurisdiction because § 924(c)(1) is unconstitutional. See,
e.g., Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 1999) (“We are obligated
to address issues of jurisdiction . . . prior to addressing the merits of an
appeal.”). District courts have “original jurisdiction . . . of all offenses
against the laws of the United States”, and this jurisdictional grant is invoked
when an indictment charges a violation of a federal criminal statute. 18
U.S.C. § 3231; see also United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir.
2013). The district court had jurisdiction. See United States v. Williams, 341
U.S. 58, 66 (1951) (“Even the unconstitutionality of the statute under which
the proceeding is brought does not oust a court of jurisdiction.”).
       Next, the Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver in Ruiz’
earlier-referenced plea agreement. The waiver question is non-jurisdictional,
and we choose to pretermit it. See, e.g., United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226,
230–31 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining appeal waivers are non-jurisdictional).
       Because Ruiz did not raise in district court the other issues he presents
on appeal, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669
F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Ruiz must show a
forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to
reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the
discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only

                                       2
Case: 23-10406         Document: 79-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                   No. 23-10406

if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
       Ruiz stored and distributed methamphetamine in a residence where
he lived with his girlfriend. He contends he had a right to possess firearms
there, notwithstanding his criminal activity (an issue he concedes he did not
preserve in district court). It is not clear, however, that Bruen or other
binding authority compels this conclusion. Because Ruiz’ theory requires an
extension of precedent, he fails to show the requisite clear or obvious error.
See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023)
(“Arguments that require the extension of existing precedent cannot meet
the plain error standard.”).
       Lastly, because the issue was considered in the Government’s brief
and Ruiz’ reply brief, we will address the sufficiency of the factual basis under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3) (requiring court to validate
factual basis before entering judgment on guilty plea). See United States v.
Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009) (exercising discretion to consider
issue raised in appellee’s brief and addressed in reply). Under plain-error
review, our court may look beyond Ruiz’ admissions and “scan the entire
record for facts supporting his conviction”. United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d
308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010).
       Ruiz contends there are insufficient facts to show his firearm
possession was “in furtherance of” his drug-trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). The record, however, includes multiple details linking the
firearms found in his residence with methamphetamine trafficking. See
United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 412, 414–15 (5th Cir. 2000)
(outlining examples and factors). And, Ruiz admitted he kept the firearms in
his residence to protect his money and methamphetamine from robbery. See
id. at 412 (explaining firearm possession to defend against robbery is example

                                        3
Case: 23-10406     Document: 79-1      Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                              No. 23-10406

of possession “in furtherance”). The requisite clear-or-obvious error is
lacking.
       AFFIRMED.
Judge Oldham would grant the Government’s motion to enforce the appeal
waiver.

                                   4