United States v. Patino

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-10080
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10080 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10080 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 27, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Flavio Charles Patino,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-40-1 ______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Flavio Charles Patino appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s power to regulate felon gun possession under the Commerce

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10080 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2025

No. 24-10080

Clause per National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 529 (2012). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, arguing that Patino’s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. In the alternative, the Government moves for an extension of time to file a merits brief. As Patino concedes, his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024). Patino also concedes that his Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed. See, e.g., United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding § 922(g)(1) is “a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause”); United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020) (same); United States v. Leal, No. 22-10098, 2022 WL 4298116, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2022) (same). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED. The judgment is AFFIRMED.