USA v. James William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11567 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 06/20/2017 for Appellant James Paris Williams; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8422362-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8422362-3] [16-11567]

Download PDF
Case: 16-11567 Document: 00514011933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11567 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 30, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. JAMES PARIS WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16-CR-18-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, James Paris Williams raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 14546 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Trejo, 610 F3d 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2010). In Alcantar, we rejected the argument that Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), affected our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F.3d at 146. In 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-11567 Document: 00514011933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2017 No. 16-11567 Trejo, we applied the plain error standard to a factual sufficiency claim that was raised for the first time in this court. 610 F.3d at 313. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

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?