Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wayne Edward Greer was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas sentenced him to 57 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Greer challenged § 922(g)(1) as facially unconstitutional and beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause power. He also raised an as-applied constitutional challenge and contested an offense-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), now designated as § 2K2.1(b)(7)(B), arguing that the evidence did not show that he possessed the firearms in connection with drug trafficking.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed Greer’s conviction and sentence. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the court held that circuit precedent foreclosed his facial and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1). It also rejected his as-applied challenge under the court’s existing precedent.
The court further upheld the sentencing enhancement. It concluded that the district court’s finding that Greer possessed the firearms in connection with drug trafficking was plausible when the record was considered as a whole and therefore was not clearly erroneous.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Greer’s facial and Commerce Clause challenges to the federal felon-in-possession statute.
- The court also rejected Greer’s as-applied constitutional challenge under binding circuit authority.
- The firearm-related sentencing enhancement survived clear-error review because the district court’s drug-trafficking connection finding was plausible on the full record.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, in the Fifth Circuit, the constitutional arguments Greer raised against § 922(g)(1) remain foreclosed by circuit precedent. It also illustrates the deference appellate courts give to fact-based sentencing findings under clear-error review.
For practitioners contesting an enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, the opinion underscores that reversal requires more than presenting a competing view of the evidence; the district court’s finding must be clearly erroneous.