United States v. Miranda

Opinion

Case: 24-50502 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2025

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

No. 24-50502 FILED July 14, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Arnulfo Miranda,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-5-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Arnulfo Miranda pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His predicate felony convictions included two Texas aggravated robbery convictions. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. On appeal, Miranda 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: 24-50502 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2025

No. 24-50502

statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a merits brief. We conclude that Miranda’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed. See United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 870-71 (5th Cir. 2025). Further, as Miranda concedes, his facial constitutional challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1727419 (U.S. June 23, 2025) (No. 24-6625). Finally, we conclude that his Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Because his issues are clearly 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, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.