Case: 23-30382 Document: 00517009513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-30382 December 20, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Fredarius D. Jackson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:22-CR-168-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Fredarius D. Jackson pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment
charging him with possessing firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to sixty months in
prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He timely appealed. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (providing 14 days to appeal from the date of entry
of the judgment). As he concedes, he did not preserve his arguments on
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30382 Document: 00517009513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2023
No. 23-30382
appeal in the district court. Thus, our review is for plain error only. See United
States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014) (reviewing an unpreserved
constitutional challenge to a federal statute for plain error). To demonstrate
plain error, Jackson must show a clear or obvious error that affected his
substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he
does so, this court may correct the error but should do so only if it “seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
Jackson argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in
light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which set forth a new test for assessing the
constitutionality of a statute under the Second Amendment, and that the
district court’s failure to advise him of its unconstitutionality violated
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Bruen Court stated that “[w]hen
the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the
Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” 597 U.S. at 24. “The
government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is
consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at
2130. Only if the Government meets its burden “may a court conclude that
the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified
command.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Before Bruen, this court held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the
Second Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Darrington, 351 F.3d 632, 633-
34 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). And in his concurring opinion in Bruen,
Justice Kavanaugh—quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,
626–27 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010)—stated:
“[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”
Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
2
Case: 23-30382 Document: 00517009513 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/20/2023
No. 23-30382
This court addressed the impact of Bruen on the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1) in United States v. Jones, No. 23-10198, 2023 WL 8074295, at *1
(5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (per curiam published opinion). The Jones court
reviewed § 922(g)(1) for plain error and reasoned that if an argument requires
“the extension of existing precedent [then it] cannot meet the plain error
standard.” Id. at *2 (citations omitted). This court also held that the
appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court’s application of §
922(g)(1) constituted plain error, meaning it was not clear or obvious error,
and affirmed the lower court’s opinion. Id. at *2–3.
Applying the same standard to the instant case yields the same result,
and Jackson has not shown that any error was clear or obvious. Consequently,
his appeal cannot survive plain error review. Moreover, absent a Supreme
Court decision or our court sitting en banc and providing an “intervening
contrary or superseding decision,” a panel of this court “cannot overrule a
prior panel’s decision.” Burge v. Par. of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th
Cir. 1999). Thus, we must adhere to the precedent set by Jones and conclude
that Jackson’s argument does not survive plain error review. 2023 WL
8074295, at *1–3.
Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3