UNITED STATES v. OWENS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-22No. No. 20-11108

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Owens's conviction, granting the government's motion for summary affirmance because the constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by prior Circuit precedent and the government's position was clearly correct as a matter of law.

Damoni Owens appealed his guilty plea conviction for violating the federal felon-in-possession statute, challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on Commerce Clause grounds. Owens relied on principles from the Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius but acknowledged that controlling Fifth Circuit precedent in United States v. Alcantar had already rejected this exact argument. The government sought summary affirmance, arguing the law was clearly constitutional as a matter of law and that no genuine question remained about the proper outcome.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause authority
Effect of binding Circuit precedent on appellant's constitutional arguments
Appropriateness of summary affirmance when controlling precedent forecloses relief

Procedural posture

Owens appealed his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, raising a constitutional challenge that the government moved to dispose of summarily based on established Circuit law.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Damoni Owens appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Relying on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), Owens argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congresss authority under the Commerce Clause. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013). Citing Alcantar, the Government moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a merits brief.

The Governments position is “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969); see Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 145-46. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Governments alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* 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.