United States v. Goines

Case: 25-10569 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-10569 February 5, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jeremy Todd Goines, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-22-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Jeremy Todd Goines appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), for which he was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court plainly erred by determining that his prior Texas robbery conviction under Texas Penal Code § 29.02 constituted a crime of violence _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10569 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2026

No. 25-10569 under the Sentencing Guidelines. He further argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

Because Goines did not raise his sentencing argument in the district court, review is for plain error. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

In United States v. Wickware, 143 F.4th 670 (5th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 2025 WL 3260271 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2025) (No. 25-5947), this court rejected an argument that Texas robbery no longer qualified as a crime of violence after the Sentencing Commission’s amendment defining the enumerated offense of robbery. However, the Wickware decision did not address Goines’s argument that the mens rea of the Texas robbery statute is broader than that of the enumerated offense of robbery. Id. at 674 n.2. Goines’s argument fails under plain error review because he cannot identify an error that is clear or obvious. See United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

Goines correctly concedes that his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 467-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). He is also correct that his Commerce Clause argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).

AFFIRMED.