Background
David Manuel Garcia was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place under 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(c). Although he moved to dismiss the indictment in the district court, that motion was not based on the constitutional grounds he raised on appeal. He argued that the statute exceeds congressional authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that because the constitutional challenge was not raised in the district court, it must be reviewed for plain error. Garcia relied on United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez but admitted the issue was one of first impression in the Fifth Circuit regarding this specific statute. The court cited United States v. Vargas-Soto, stating that an error is not plain if it requires the extension of precedent. Since Garcia did not rely on cases involving Section 2423(c), he could not show plain error.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that unpreserved constitutional challenges to federal statutes require a showing of plain error, which is difficult to meet when the issue is one of first impression in the circuit and no controlling precedent directly addresses the statute.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download