United States v. Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-10712
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-10712 Document: 98-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025

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

No. 23-10712 FILED January 28, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ray Benjamin Martinez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-40-1 ______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Ray Benjamin Martinez contends that the statute under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He also asserts that, as interpreted by this court, the statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10712 Document: 98-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2025

No. 23-10712

Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. The Government is correct that Martinez’s challenges are foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp. Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 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.