United States v. Clark

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 · Evidence
Reporter Citation Pending
Updated
EvidenceSecond AmendmentEqual ProtectionAppeal Waiver18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)felon in possessionBruenviolent felony

Facts

Clark was on probation for a Louisiana felony conviction of aggravated assault with a firearm when he was found possessing another firearm. He was then indicted under § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession. In the district court, he argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him under Bruen, and also raised Fifth Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges. His plea agreement waived appeal except for a direct appeal of the district court’s order regarding his Bruen motion to dismiss.

Issue

Whether § 922(g)(1), as applied to Clark, violates the Second Amendment where his predicate felony was aggravated assault with a firearm and he possessed a firearm while on probation. Also, whether Clark could pursue his Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge despite his appeal waiver.

Rule

Under the Bruen framework, courts first ask whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the individual’s conduct; if so, the government must show that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. In the Fifth Circuit, as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) fail where the defendant’s criminal history falls within recognized categories such as violence, and where the defendant possessed a firearm while on probation or similar release status. An appeal waiver bars an appeal when it is knowing and voluntary and, by its plain language, covers the issue raised.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Houston, Marcus Velez pleaded guilty to possessing a pistol after a prior Texas felony conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm. At the time police found the pistol in his car, he had already completed his sentence and was not on probation or supervised release.

Under the Fifth Circuit majority's reasoning, which is the strongest basis for rejecting Marcus's as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)?

Explanation. The majority held that a violent predicate offense, especially aggravated assault with a firearm, is enough to defeat an as-applied challenge because history and tradition support disarming persons with violent criminal histories. The holding did not require current probation status, detailed relitigation of the prior crime, or proof of present unlawful intent. (Derived from United States v. Clark (n.d.).)