United States v. Teran ( 2022 )

Case: 22-10181 Document: 00516428275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 11, 2022
No. 22-10181
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Teran,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:20-CR-365-1
Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Teran appeals his conviction and sentence for possessing a fire-
arm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Citing National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519(2012), Teran argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeds the scope of Congress’s power
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10181 Document: 00516428275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
No. 22-10181
under the Commerce Clause and is thus unconstitutional. He specifically
asserts that Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause authorizes it to
regulate only commercial activity and that the mere travel of an object
through interstate commerce is not, by itself, a commercial act.
Teran concedes that his claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and
he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The government has filed
an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and an alternative request for
an extension of time to file its brief. In United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143(5th Cir. 2013), we noted that we have consistently upheld the constitution-
ality of § 922(g), a statutory provision that we described as “a valid exercise
of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.” Alcantar, 733 F.3d
at 145. We explained that National Federation did not address the constitu-
tionality of § 922(g) and did not express an intention to overrule precedent
finding § 922(g) constitutional. Id. at 146. Therefore, the parties are correct
that Teran’s claim is foreclosed. See Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 145–46; Groendyke
Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the
alternative motion is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
2