United States v. Watts

── United States v. Watts ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-30148 Document: 79-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30148 FILED Summary Calendar April 13, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Xavion Watts, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:24-CR-9-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Defendant-Appellant Xavion Watts appeals his conviction for possession of a machinegun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and his above- guidelines sentence to ten years of imprisonment. He contends that (1) his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; (2) Section 922(o) is unconstitutional as applied to him in light of New York State Rifle & _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30148 Document: 79-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 No. 25-30148 Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); and (3) Congress’s enactment of § 922(o) exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. With respect to the sentence, which was imposed in the alternative as an upward variance, we are not persuaded that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or by failing to explain its reasons for the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50–51 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). As a result, we need not consider the procedural reasonableness of the district court’s imposition of the sentence as an upward departure in the alternative. See United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 561–62 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 723 (5th Cir. 2007). Considering our deferential standard of review, Watts has not demonstrated that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439–40 (5th Cir. 2013). Watts’s unpreserved constitutional challenges to § 922(o) under the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause fail on plain error review. See United States v. Sanches, 86 F.4th 680, 688 (5th Cir. 2023); Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 451 (5th Cir. 2016), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025); United States v. Knutson, 113 F.3d 27, 31 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2