USA v. Morrison, No. 22-10570 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-10570 Document: 00516667388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-10570 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED March 6, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Samuel Lee Morrison, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20-CR-289-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Samuel Morrison appeals his conviction of illegal receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n) and 924(a)(1)(D). He avers that § 922(n) does not pass the historical test announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and is therefore unconstitutional. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-10570 Document: 00516667388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 No. 22-10570 We review Morrison’s challenge for plain error because he did not present it to the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Toure, 965 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2020). This court has rejected the notion that § 922(n) is clearly or obviously unconstitutional under Bruen. See United States v. Avila, No. 22-50088, 2022 WL 17832287, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2022) (unpublished). The issue is therefore subject to reasonable dispute, so Morrison cannot demonstrate clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 802 (5th Cir. 2015) (“In considering whether an error is clear or obvious we look to the state of the law at the time of appeal.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 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.