# United States v. Tevin Wright

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 7, 2016 · 642 F. App'x 486

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3192444

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tevin Rashad WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 7, 2016
- **Citations:** 642 F. App'x 486
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Jolly, Dennis, Prado
- **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/3192444

## Opinion text

Case: 15-10892 Document: 00513455900 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals

No. 15-10892
Fifth Circuit

FILED
Summary Calendar April 7, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TEVIN RASHAD WRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-116

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Tevin Rashad Wright challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis for
his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in
McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015), calls into question our
holding in United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988), that the
offense does not require knowledge of a firearm’s interstate nexus. Because

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-10892 Document: 00513455900 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2016

No. 15-10892

McFadden does not unequivocally direct this court to overrule Dancy, “we are
not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent.” United States v. Alcantar, 733
F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s
motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See United States v. Holy Land
Found. for Relief, 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). Its alternative motion for
an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3192444. Public record. Not legal advice.