United States v. Garza

Case: 22-51021 Document: 00516788766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51021
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 15, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
John Michael Garza,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:22-CR-135-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
John Michael Garza pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2), and the district court imposed a sentence of 96 months in prison
to be followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Garza argues
that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment,
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51021 Document: 00516788766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-51021
particularly in light of the recent decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol
Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 61
F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 17, 2023) (No. 22-
915).
Because Garza did not make this argument in the district court, we
review for plain error only. See United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950
(5th Cir. 1994); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). An
error is not clear or obvious where an issue is disputed or unresolved, or
where there is an absence of controlling authority. United States v. Rodriguez-
Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2009). In fact, “[e]ven where the
argument requires only extending authoritative precedent, the failure of the
district court [to do so] cannot be plain error.” Wallace v. Mississippi, 43
F.4th 482, 500 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Because there is no binding precedent explicitly holding that
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied and because it is not
clear that either Bruen or Rahimi dictate such a result, Garza is unable to
demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious. See Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d
at 230-31; see also United States v. Petras, 879 F.3d 155, 164 (5th Cir. 2018).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2