United States v. Garner

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 25-30206
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-30206 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 25-30206 October 29, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Dalando T. Garner,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:24-CR-112-1 ______________________________

Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Dalando T. Garner argues for the first time on appeal that his statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is facially unconstitutional. Additionally, Garner argues, as he did in the district court, that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him. He concedes that both arguments are

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30206 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2025

No. 25-30206

foreclosed. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. We agree with the parties that Garner’s facial challenge, which we review for plain error, and his as-applied challenge, which we review de novo, are foreclosed. See United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 866-70 (5th Cir. 2025) (addressing as-applied challenge); United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024) (addressing facial challenge), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025); see also United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014) (addressing standard of review). Accordingly, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). In light of the foregoing, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.