United States v. James Perryman, 965 F.3d 424

ATF observed Perryman post a photo of a pistol with a visible serial number; a January 17, 2019 traffic stop in Lubbock produced a loaded pistol matching that serial. Perryman pleaded guilty to possession by a felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
Initial PSR (May 17, 2019) set base offense level 20, recommended a 3‑level acceptance reduction, criminal history V, guideline range 46–57 months.
On May 22, 2019 Perryman testified at the unrelated trial of Sean Paul Dalka, claiming firearms and meth found at Dalka’s residence were Perryman’s and describing drug‑related activity and carrying the pistol for protection.
Government objected (June 7, 2019) alleging Perryman perjured himself, obstructed justice, and that the firearm was connected to drug trafficking; the probation officer’s addendum (June 14) concurred and recalculated a guideline range of 110–120 months (capped at the 10‑year statutory maximum).
At sentencing (June 28, 2019) the district court adopted the PSR and addendum, applied a §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement and a four‑level firearms‑in‑connection enhancement, denied the acceptance reduction, and sentenced Perryman to 110 months; Perryman appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: Perryman’s constitutional challenge to §922(g)(1) was foreclosed by precedent, and the obstruction enhancement was supported by the PSR addendum and trial testimony summary.

Issue	Perryman's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1)	§922(g)(1) exceeds Commerce Clause power after Sebelius; possession need not be economic activity	Scarborough/Alcantar control: statute only requires prior interstate travel of the firearm; statute remains constitutional	Foreclosed by circuit precedent; statute constitutional
Obstruction enhancement based on alleged perjury at Dalka trial and adequacy of factual basis in PSR addendum	District court improperly adopted PSR addendum that relied on government’s unsworn descriptions; testimony alone without contradictory evidence insufficient to support perjury finding	PSR and addendum bear sufficient indicia of reliability; trial testimony and its summary in the PSR support a perjury/obstruction finding; district court may adopt PSR facts	Affirmed; district court properly adopted PSR addendum and enhancement was not clearly erroneous

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause power implicated)
Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (§ 922(g) satisfied if firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce)
United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (§ 922(g)(1) constitutional post‑Sebelius)
United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 1999) (standard of review: guidelines interpretation de novo; factual findings clear‑error)
United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2012) (PSRs bear sufficient indicia of reliability to be considered as evidence)
United States v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2010) (district court may adopt PSR facts absent rebuttal)
United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2007) (same principle on PSR adoption)
United States v. Leonard, 61 F.3d 1181 (5th Cir. 1995) (testimony under oath observed by the district court has indicia of reliability)
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (issues not raised are forfeited/waived)