United States v. Acosta

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 25, 2025
Docket25-50083
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Acosta (United States v. Acosta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Acosta, (5th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

Case: 25-50083 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/25/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50083 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 25, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Frankie Acosta,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-160-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Frankie Acosta raises three issues that he correctly concedes are foreclosed by circuit precedents but raises to preserve for further review. We rejected his first claim, a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment, in United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50083 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/25/2025

No. 25-50083

cert. denied, 2025 WL 1727419 (U.S. June 23, 2025) (No. 24-6625). We rejected his second claim, an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) by a defendant serving a sentence for a prior felony conviction at the time of his § 922(g)(1) offense, in United States v. Giglio, 126 F.4th 1039, 1044-45 (5th Cir. 2025). Finally, we held that his third claim, a challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause, was foreclosed in United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Its alternative motion for an extension of time to file its appellate brief is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Guadalupe Alcantar
733 F.3d 143 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Diaz
116 F.4th 458 (Fifth Circuit, 2024)
United States v. Giglio
126 F.4th 1039 (Fifth Circuit, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Acosta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-acosta-ca5-2025.