United States v. Hernandez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-50380
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50363 Document: 80-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50363 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 21, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Antonio Hernandez,

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with _____________

No. 24-50380 _____________

United States of America,

Jose Hernandez,

Defendant—Appellant. Case: 24-50363 Document: 80-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

No. 24-50363 c/w No. 24-50380

______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 7:23-CR-210-1, 7:20-CR-309-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jose Antonio Hernandez argues that his statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violates the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to him in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). In addition, he contends that § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause. He has abandoned, by failing to brief, any argument regarding the consolidated appeal from his supervised release revocation proceeding. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Hernandez correctly concedes that his facial Second Amendment challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Contreras, 125 F.4th 725, 729 (5th Cir. 2025). Also, because Hernandez was serving a term of supervised release when he violated § 922(g)(1), the statute does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to him. See United States v. Giglio, 126 F.4th 1039, 1043-46 (5th Cir. 2025). Finally, as Hernandez correctly acknowledges, his Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 462 (5th Cir. 2024). AFFIRMED.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.