United States v. Pineda-Guevara

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 23-60645
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-60645 Document: 82-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-60645 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 30, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tommy Pineda-Guevara,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:23-CR-2-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Tommy Pineda-Guevara pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by an illegal alien in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). On appeal, he argues that § 922(g)(5)(A) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. 1 The Government has moved for summary affirmance, citing

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 1 To the extent Mr. Pineda-Guevara presses an as-applied challenge, he does so for the first time on appeal. This argument is forfeited. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th Case: 23-60645 Document: 82-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2025

No. 23-60645

United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011), and United States v. Medina-Cantu, 113 F.4th 537 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Jan. 28, 2025) (No. 24-6427), both of which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(5)(A) and foreclose Pineda-Guevara’s constitutional challenge, as the Government correctly contends. See Medina- Cantu, 113 F.4th at 542; Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d at 442. Because Pineda-Guevara opposes the Government’s motion, we decline to grant summary affirmance. Nevertheless, further briefing is unnecessary. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

_____________________ 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021).