Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jarrod Carter was convicted of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appealed his conviction, raising several constitutional challenges. Carter argued that § 922(g)(1) violates both the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment, asserting both facial and as-applied challenges in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Additionally, for the first time on appeal, Carter contended that his separate convictions and sentences for multiple counts in the indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. Addressing Carter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge, the court reiterated its established precedent, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) permissibly disarms felons previously convicted of drug trafficking offenses, citing United States v. Kimble. Consequently, Carter’s as-applied challenge failed.
Regarding his facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges, the court noted that Carter correctly conceded these arguments were foreclosed by binding Fifth Circuit precedent, referencing United States v. Diaz and United States v. Alcantar. Finally, the court dismissed Carter’s Double Jeopardy claim because it was raised for the first time on appeal, and he failed to demonstrate plain error, which is the requisite standard for review in such circumstances, as established in United States v. Willis.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit continues to uphold the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms, against as-applied Second Amendment challenges for individuals with prior drug trafficking convictions.
- Existing Fifth Circuit precedent remains binding regarding facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1), even in light of Bruen.
- Appellants must demonstrate plain error for legal claims, such as Double Jeopardy violations, that are raised for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the Fifth Circuit’s firm stance on constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), particularly in the aftermath of Bruen. Attorneys in the Fifth Circuit should recognize that as-applied Second Amendment challenges to the felon-in-possession statute are unlikely to succeed for individuals with drug trafficking felony convictions. Furthermore, attempts to bring facial Second Amendment or Commerce Clause challenges to this statute are effectively foreclosed by circuit precedent.
The ruling also serves as a crucial reminder for appellate practitioners about the strict procedural requirements for raising new arguments on appeal. Claims not preserved in the trial court, such as Double Jeopardy violations, face a high burden of demonstrating plain error to warrant appellate review, limiting the scope of issues that can be successfully litigated at the circuit level.