USA v. Bryan Gilstrap, No. 17-10950 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-10950 Document: 00514600574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10950 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 15, 2018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. BRYAN MARQUE GILSTRAP, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16-CR-344-1 Before ELROD, GRAVES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Bryan Marque Gilstrap appeals his conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition of his appeal, conceding that his arguments raised for the first time on appeal are foreclosed by this court’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-10950 Document: 00514600574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 No. 17-10950 precedents. He raises the arguments solely to preserve them for possible further review. Although Gilstrap argues that § 922(g) is unconstitutional because it regulates conduct that falls outside of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section Eight, of the Constitution, we rejected that argument in United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). We have also rejected the argument, like Gilstrap’s, that a conviction under § 922(g) requires proof that a defendant knew that the firearm he possessed had traveled in interstate commerce. United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705-06 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, Gilstrap’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 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.