Case: 22-11244 Document: 00517060134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-11244 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 8, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Demarcus Deon Staples, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CR-237-1 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Demarcus Deon Staples pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) (prohibiting felons in possession), 924(a)(2) (outlining penalty for knowing violation). He contends for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in the light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022) _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-11244 Document: 00517060134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2024

No. 22-11244

(announcing rule for assessing whether statute infringes on Second Amendment).

Staples (as he concedes) did not preserve his constitutional claim in district court. Because he failed to so do, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Staples must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).

Staples cannot show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting plain-error challenge to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen).

AFFIRMED.