Opinion

United States v. Brown

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Feb 19, 2025
Status
Unpublished
Nature of suit
Direct Criminal
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.0%

The opinion

Case: 24-20266 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2025

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 24-20266

FILED

February 19, 2025

Summary Calendar

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Deonta Brown,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-502-2

______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Deonta Brown was convicted of aiding and abetting interference with

commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2, and aiding

and abetting using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation

to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. He

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20266 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2025

No. 24-20266

was sentenced to a total term of 162 months of imprisonment and three years

of supervised release.

On appeal, Brown challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis

regarding the interstate commerce element of § 1951(a), asserting that the

taking of $100 in cash and a cell phone worth approximately $130 failed to

establish a substantial effect on interstate commerce. He concedes, however,

that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 1205,

1212-14 (5th Cir. 1997), and that he raises this issue merely to preserve it for

further review. The Government therefore has filed an unopposed motion

for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a

brief.

Because Brown is correct that his argument is foreclosed, see United

States v. Turner, 674 F.3d 420, 443-44 & n.88 (5th Cir. 2012), summary

affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,

1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time

to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.