United States v. Daily

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: 25-10974
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-10974 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026

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

FILED No. 25-10974 May 15, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Andrew Ryan Daily,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-87-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Andrew Ryan Daily appeals his guilty plea conviction for attempted production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Citing Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), Daily argues that the district court plainly erred by accepting a factual resume that admitted only that the item he used had moved in interstate commerce. He also contends, citing _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10974 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2026

No. 25-10974

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), that Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause authorizes it to regulate only commercial activity and that the use of an object that traveled through interstate commerce in the past is not, by itself, a commercial act. However, he concedes that his arguments are foreclosed under current precedent. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance. The parties are correct that Daily’s challenge to his factual basis is foreclosed. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). Summary affirmance is therefore appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.