United States v. Montano Fuentes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 4, 2024
• Docket: 23-10415
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-10415 Document: 112-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED December 4, 2024 No. 23-10415 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Elmer Alexis Montano Fuentes,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:22-CR-306-1 ______________________________

Before Haynes, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Elmer Alexis Montano Fuentes appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm as an illegal alien in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). We have rejected his contentions that a firearm’s prior travel in interstate commerce across state lines fails to satisfy the commerce element of § 922(g), see United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242–43 (5th Cir. 1996), and that, so applied, the

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10415 Document: 112-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2024

No. 23-10415

statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, see United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). We likewise have rejected his contention that § 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). See United States v. Medina-Cantu, 113 F.4th 537, 538–39 (5th Cir. 2024). Conceding that his claims are foreclosed, Montano Fuentes raises them to preserve them for further review. Because the issues are foreclosed and “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.