United States v. McLeod

Opinion

Case: 24-60648 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-60648 FILED Summary Calendar August 28, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jeremy Jerome McLeod,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:23-CR-125-1

______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jeremy Jerome McLeod pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His prior felony convictions included Mississippi convictions for possession of a controlled substance and robbery. On appeal, McLeod argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him, and that the

_____________________

*

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

Case: 24-60648 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2025

No. 24-60648

statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance.

As McLeod concedes, his facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed. See United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 870-71 (5th Cir. 2025); United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 462 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1727419 (U.S. June 23, 2025) (No. 24- 6625). Furthermore, as McLeod also concedes, his Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

Because McLeod opposes the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, we decline to grant it. See United States v. Houston, 625 F.3d 871, 873 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010); Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Nevertheless, as his arguments are foreclosed, we affirm the district court’s judgment without further briefing. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019).

The motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.