Case: 23-30597 Document: 00517066364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-30597 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 16, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Rawtavious Moore, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:22-CR-292-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Rawtavious Moore appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Moore contends for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). Moore concedes that this court’s review is for _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-30597 Document: 00517066364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2024

No. 23-30597

plain error. To demonstrate plain error, Moore must show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. As the Government contends, Moore’s argument that the district court plainly erred because § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F. 4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023). In Jones, we held that any error was not clear or obvious because there was no binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional and it was unclear that Bruen dictated such a result. Id. at 574.

Where “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.