Background
Alforn Napoleon Lee was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi sentenced him to 29 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $1,500 fine.
On appeal, Lee argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. He also contended that a firearm’s past movement in interstate commerce was insufficient to satisfy the statute’s “in or affecting commerce” element and that the statute exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. Lee conceded that Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed each argument, and the government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion and affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that United States v. Diaz foreclosed Lee’s facial Second Amendment challenge and that United States v. Kimble, United States v. Schnur, and United States v. Giglio foreclosed his as-applied challenge.
The court further held that existing circuit precedent foreclosed Lee’s challenges to Congress’s Commerce Clause authority and to the sufficiency of a firearm’s prior interstate movement under § 922(g)(1). Because controlling precedent resolved all of Lee’s claims, the panel concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses facial challenges to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen.
- The court treated Lee’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge as foreclosed by its recent felon-in-possession decisions.
- Existing circuit law also forecloses arguments that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power or requires more than a firearm’s prior movement in interstate commerce.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision confirms that Fifth Circuit panels will summarily reject preserved challenges to § 922(g)(1) when controlling circuit precedent squarely resolves them. Defendants may continue raising such arguments to preserve them for further review, but they cannot obtain relief from a Fifth Circuit panel absent intervening contrary authority or en banc reconsideration.