Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Brandon J. Taylor was convicted in the Middle District of Louisiana of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
On appeal, Taylor argued that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him. He acknowledged, however, that existing Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed those arguments. The Government moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fifth Circuit held that Taylor’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges were foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025).
Because controlling precedent resolved the issues, the court concluded that summary disposition was appropriate. It granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative request for additional briefing time as moot, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Taylor’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1).
- The court resolved the appeal through summary affirmance because the governing law left no substantial issue for further briefing.
- Taylor’s felon-in-possession conviction remains in effect.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, within the Fifth Circuit, United States v. Diaz continues to control facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to the federal felon-in-possession statute. A defendant who concedes that Diaz forecloses the asserted challenge may face summary disposition without full merits briefing.