UNITED STATES v. MORALES (2020)

Dallas Ray Morales appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Relying on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), Morales argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate economic activities. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013). Citing Alcantar, the Government moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a merits brief.

The Government's position is “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969); see Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 145-46. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government's alternate motion for an extension of time is DENIED. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.