Court Opinion

ID: 9375325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:46.138814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.322033
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10375     Document: 00516654671         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/23/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 22-10375
                                Summary Calendar                            FILED
                                                                     February 23, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                Clerk

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Mark Anthony Reyna,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:21-CR-80-1

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Mark Anthony Reyna appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm
   after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Citing
   National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012),
   Reyna argues for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) exceeds the scope

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10375       Document: 00516654671          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                     No. 22-10375

   of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and is thus
   unconstitutional. He specifically contends that Congress’s power under the
   Commerce Clause authorizes it to regulate only commercial activity and that
   the mere travel of an object through interstate commerce is not, by itself, a
   commercial act.
          Reyna concedes that his claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and
   he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has
   filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and an alternative
   request for an extension of time to file its brief. The parties are correct that
   Reyna’s claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-
   46 (5th Cir. 2013); Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
   Cir. 1969).
          Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the
   alternative motion is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2