USA v. Brian Huett
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-10520 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate issue date is 12/26/2017 for Appellant Brian Keith Huett; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8600138-2]; denying as unnecessary motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8600138-3] [17-10520]
Date Filed: 12/01/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit
December 1, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BRIAN KEITH HUETT,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-262-1
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Brian Keith Huett 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). He contends that the Government failed
to establish the interstate commerce and mens rea elements of the offense.
Huett also contends that § 922(g) is unconstitutional facially and as applied to
him because it exceeds the federal Government’s power under the Commerce
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 12/01/2017
Huett concedes that these arguments are foreclosed by circuit
Huett’s interstate commerce argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), in which this court rejected a
similar argument that the Government’s showing that a weapon had travelled
across state lines was insufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional nexus
requirement of § 922(g). His mens rea argument is foreclosed by United States
v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988), which held that § 922(g) does not
contain a mens rea element. His Commerce Clause argument is foreclosed by
United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-56 (5th Cir. 2013), which rejected
a similar challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s
motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. 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?