United States v. Celestine
This text of United States v. Celestine (United States v. Celestine) 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.
Opinion
Case: 25-30506 Document: 65-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2026
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED No. 25-30506 May 14, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Celestine,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:24-CR-92-1 ______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Michael Celestine appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that the statute violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him, that recent interpretations of it in the Second Amendment context have rendered it unconstitutionally vague, and that it exceeds Congress’s authority under
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30506 Document: 65-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2026
No. 25-30506
the Commerce Clause. He is correct that these arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025); United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 870-71 (5th Cir. 2025); United States v. Landrum, 168 F.4th 771, 772-75 (5th Cir. 2026); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Additionally, Celestine asks us to vacate his conviction because the case-by-case application of § 922(g)(1) in the Second Amendment context violates separation of powers principles. We have not previously addressed this issue, however, and find no clear or obvious error as is necessary to establish plain error. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Celestine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-celestine-ca5-2026.