Case: 21-11263 Document: 00516427740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 10, 2022 No. 21-11263 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Brandon Williams, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-165-1

Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Brandon Williams appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He first challenges the calculation of his advisory guidelines range based on the characterization of a prior Louisiana conviction as a controlled substance offense. He also argues that 18 U.S.C.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 21-11263 Document: 00516427740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022

No. 21-11263

§ 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of power under the Commerce Clause and that his indictment failed to include, as the mens rea element for the offense, that he knew that his possession of the firearm was in or affecting interstate commerce. Williams acknowledges these arguments to be foreclosed but explains that he seeks to preserve them for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file its brief.

The challenge to Williams’s guidelines range calculation depends on a categorical-approach argument that he correctly concedes is foreclosed.

See Vasquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862, 873-74 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 2017) (en banc)). His remaining arguments are also foreclosed. See United States v. Hicks, 958 F.3d 399, 402 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). The parties are correct that summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.