Case: 23-11110 Document: 79-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 23-11110 FILED October 7, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Chadwick Smith, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:23-CR-9-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Defendant-Appellant Chadwick Smith appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court failed to clarify or inquire further regarding his statements at rearraignment that he did not wish to lose his valuable rights of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-11110 Document: 79-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2024

No. 23-11110

citizenship by pleading guilty to a felony. As Smith concedes, review is for plain error. See United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 606-07 (2013).

Smith fails to point to a provision of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 that requires the court to inform the defendant of and determine that the defendant understands that he could lose valuable rights of citizenship, such as the right to vote or to possess any kind of firearm and ammunition. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; United States v. Bethurum, 343 F.3d 712, 718 (5th Cir. 2003); Meaton v. United States, 328 F.2d 379, 380-81 (5th Cir. 1964). Smith thus fails to show that the district court erred, let alone that it clearly or obviously erred, at rearraignment. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Smith also argues, for the first time on appeal, that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment—both on its face and as applied to him—based on the test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). However, his unpreserved Bruen challenges are foreclosed. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024).

AFFIRMED.