Case: 21-10544 Document: 00516103309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 22, 2021
No. 21-10544
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James Leon Higgins,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-15-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
James Leon Higgins appeals his guilty plea conviction for possessing a
firearm following a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(a)(2), and his above-guidelines sentence of 64 months in prison. He
raises arguments relating to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10544 Document: 00516103309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 21-10544
sufficiency of the factual basis in support of his guilty plea. The Government
has filed a motion for summary affirmance, which Higgins does not oppose.
In the alternative, the Government seeks an extension of time to file its brief.
For the following reasons, we dispense with further briefing and AFFIRM.
First, Higgins argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as
interpreted by this court, as there is no requirement to show that the weapon
crossed state lines in the furtherance of interstate commerce or that the
defendant’s possession resulted from an engagement in interstate commerce.
As he concedes, these arguments are foreclosed. See United States v.
Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013).
Higgins next argues that the factual basis in support of his guilty plea
is insufficient because it does not establish that he knew that the firearm had
traveled in interstate commerce. We have concluded that a § 922(g)(1)
conviction does not require proof that a defendant knew that the firearm had
traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81
(5th Cir. 1988). Higgins does not articulate any argument that this specific
holding in Dancy has been unequivocally overruled by Rehaif v. United States,
139 S. Ct. 2191, 2196 (2019). See Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 145–46 (discussing this
court’s rule of orderliness).
In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an
extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2