United States v. Thomas ( 2022 )

Case: 21-11211 Document: 00516364054 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2022
No. 21-11211 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Eddie Dewayne Thomas,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-46-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Eddie Dewayne Thomas appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(9). He contends for the first time on appeal that § 922(g) is an
unconstitutional exercise of power under the Commerce Clause and,
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-11211 Document: 00516364054 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
No. 21-11211
alternatively, that it should be construed to require either recent movement
of a firearm across state lines or movement in commerce as a consequence of
the defendant’s conduct. Thomas acknowledges these arguments to be
foreclosed but explains that he seeks to preserve them for further review.
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or,
in the alternative, an extension of time to file its brief.
As Thomas concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See United States
v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2524(2021); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). The
Government is thus correct that summary affirmance is 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, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time
to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
2