# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10802219

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 19, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Direct Criminal
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10802219

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10802219. Public record. Not legal advice.