United States v. Williams

Case: 20-11110 Document: 00515867931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 19, 2021
No. 20-11110 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Johnny Jasper Williams,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:19-CR-22-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Johnny Williams appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Williams
brings two issues on appeal, both of which he acknowledges are foreclosed.
First, he posits that Texas robbery-by-injury is not a crime of violence under
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-11110 Document: 00515867931 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2021
No. 20-11110
U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2 because it does not involve the use of physical
force against the person of another and because it does not meet the generic
definition of robbery. Next, Williams maintains that § 922(g)(1) is an uncon-
stitutional exercise of power under the Commerce Clause and, alternatively,
that it should be construed to require either relatively recent movement of a
firearm across state lines or movement in commerce as a consequence of the
defendant’s conduct.
The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance. In the alternative, the government requests an extension of time
to file its brief.
Both Texas “robbery-by-injury” and Texas “robbery-by-threat” are
violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). United
States v. Burris, 920 F.3d 942, 948 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S.
Oct. 3, 2019) (No. 19-6186). We have routinely applied our holdings under
the ACCA to analyze the definition of crimes of violence under § 4B1.2. See
Burris, 920 F.3d at 948 n.33 (citing cases). Moreover, we have “consistently
upheld the constitutionality” of § 922(g)(1), which is “a valid exercise of
Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.” United States v. Alcan-
tar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013). Finally, in Scarborough v. United States,
431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977), the Court interpreted § 922(g)(1) “to require only
that a firearm traveled in interstate commerce at some previous time.”
United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied,
2021 WL 1520860 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2021) (No. 20-6640).
Because the government’s 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), the
motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for
an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.
2