USA v. Joaquin Price


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11781 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 08/22/2017 for Appellant Joaquin Dewayne Price; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8474055-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8474055-3] [16-11781]

Download PDF
Case: 16-11781 Document: 00514097799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11781 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED August 1, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOAQUIN DEWAYNE PRICE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16-CR-182-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joaquin Dewayne Price pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (count one), possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (count two), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (count three). He argues that his convictions on counts two and three violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-11781 Document: 00514097799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2017 No. 16-11781 summary affirmance arguing that Price’s arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, or, alternatively, requesting an extension of time to file its response brief. Price correctly concedes that his argument that separate prosecutions for counts two and three violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because count two is a lesser included offense of count three is foreclosed. See United States v. Nguyen, 117 F.3d 796, 797 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Martinez, 28 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir. 1994). He also correctly concedes that his arguments that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and because it does not require proof of knowledge that the firearm traveled in interstate commerce are also foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705-06 (5th Cir. 2009). He raises the arguments to preserve them for further review. The parties are correct that Martinez, Alcantar, and Rose foreclose Price’s arguments. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief 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?