USA v. Dantana Tanksley, No. 15-11078 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 18, 2017.
 The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 13, 2017.
 The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 14, 2017.

Download PDF
Case: 15-11078 Document: 00513638686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-11078 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 16, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANTANA TANKSLEY, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-38-1 Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Dantana Tanksley raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 14546 (5th Cir. 2013), United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705 (5th Cir. 2009), and United States v. Ford, 509 F.3d 714, 716-17 (5th Cir. 2007). In Alcantar, we rejected the argument that Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), affected our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-11078 Document: 00513638686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2016 No. 15-11078 constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F.3d at 145-46. In Rose, we held that Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), did not alter the proof required in a § 922(g)(1) case. 587 F.3d at 705. In Ford, we held that a Texas conviction for possession with intent to deliver is a “controlled substance offense.” 509 F.3d at 716-17. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.