United States v. Miranda

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2024
• Docket: 24-50196
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50196 Document: 76-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2024

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

FILED No. 24-50196 December 23, 2024 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Emmanuel Gonzalez Miranda,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CR-1925-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The government appeals the dismissal of Emmanuel Gonzalez Miran- da’s indictment. The district court concluded that the statute under which he was indicted, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), is unconstitutional per New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The government also moves for summary disposition or, alternatively, for an extension of time to

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50196 Document: 76-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2024

No. 24-50196

file its brief. Because Gonzalez Miranda has not conceded that relief is foreclosed, we decline to effect summary disposition. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019) (denying motion for summary affirmance but nonetheless affirming). Nonetheless, the government is correct that, under United States v. Medina-Cantu, 113 F.4th 537 (5th Cir. 2024), the dis- missal was error. Given the foregoing, the motion for summary disposition is DENIED. We dispense with further briefing, REVERSE the order of dis- missal, and REMAND for further proceedings. The alternative motion for extension is DENIED as unnecessary.