USA v. Aaron Beasley, No. 17-10945 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-10945 Document: 00514286303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10945 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AARON BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16-CR-484-1 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Aaron Beasley pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and he received a sentence of 57 months in prison, to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Beasley asserts that the district court erred in the sentencing calculations because his prior Texas convictions for aggravated robbery did not constitute the enumerated offense of “robbery” under U.S.S.G. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-10945 Document: 00514286303 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2017 No. 17-10945 § 4B1.2. As he concedes, however, his claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). In addition, Beasley argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it is not necessary to prove that his possession of the firearm was in or affected interstate commerce. In support of his assertion, he relies on Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). However, he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 143-46 (5th Cir. 2013). In his final ground for relief, Beasley cites to Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), to support his proposition that his convictions may not stand because the indictment did not allege and Beasley did not admit that he knew his possession of the firearms was in or affected interstate commerce. A conviction under § 922(g)(1) requires proof that the defendant knew he possessed the firearm but does not require knowledge of the interstate nexus. United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988). In United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705 (5th Cir. 2009), this court held that Dancy remained good law even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Flores-Figueroa, which addressed the mens rea element of a different statute. Accordingly, as Beasley concedes, his argument is foreclosed. In light of the foregoing, Beasley’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. 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.
