United States v. Meeks

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 30, 2024
• Docket: 24-10403
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10403 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10403 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 30, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carlos James Meeks,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20-CR-460-1 ______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Carlos James Meeks pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he presents two unpreserved challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). First, he argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen,

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10403 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2024

No. 24-10403

597 U.S. 1 (2022). Next, he asserts that the jurisdictional element of § 922(g)(1) requires more than past interstate travel at an indeterminate time; but if it does not, he maintains that the statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. Meeks correctly concedes that his arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024); United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Therefore, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.