USA v. Chansavath Thipprachack
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10025 Affirmed] Judge: CDK, Judge: JLD, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 01/18/2017 for Appellant Chansavath Thipprachack; denying motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8295246-2]; denying as unnecessary motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8295246-3] [16-10025]
Date Filed: 12/28/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
December 28, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-196-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Chansavath Thipprachack challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis
supporting his guilty plea to the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He contends that the
Supreme Court’s decision in McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015),
calls into question our holding in United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82
(5th Cir. 1988), that the offense does not require knowledge of a firearm’s
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 12/28/2016
interstate nexus. Relying on Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct.
2566 (2012), Thipprachack additionally contends that § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional because it exceeds the federal government’s power under the
Because McFadden does not unequivocally direct this court to overrule
Dancy, “we are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent.” United States
v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, as Thipprachack
concedes, his Commerce Clause argument is foreclosed by Alcantar, which
rejected a similar challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Alcantar,
733 F.3d at 145-46.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s
motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v.
Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Its alternative motion for an
extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?