United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-60417 FILED June 4, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus Marcus Delars Branson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:23-CR-61-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge: Marcus Delars Branson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He also argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We AFFIRM. Case: 24-60417 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2025

No. 24-60417

I. In 2018, Marcus Delars Branson was convicted of bank robbery in Texas and sentenced to a thirty-seven-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Branson was released in 2020, and a condition of his supervised release was that he not possess a gun. In March 2023—months before his supervised release term was up—a United States Probation Officer visited Branson’s apartment and found two firearms. Branson was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a person who has previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year—a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Branson moved to dismiss the indictment, lodging facial and as- applied challenges under the Second Amendment in light of Bruen. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and Branson thereafter pled guilty and was sentenced to a forty-one-month term of imprisonment, to run consecutively to his revocation sentence of twenty-four-months’ imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release that would run concurrently with the revocation term of supervised release. This timely appeal followed, wherein Branson presents his preserved Second Amendment challenges and three unpreserved challenges. II. “We review preserved challenges to the constitutionality of a criminal statute de novo. But if the constitutional challenge was not presented to the district court, we review for plain error.” United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

2 Case: 24-60417 Document: 70-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2025

No. 24-60417

III. Branson seeks reversal on five grounds, four of which are foreclosed. The fifth, his void-for-vagueness challenge, lacks merit. A. First, Branson contends that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second A