United States v. Robinson

Opinion

Case: 24-10493 Document: 79-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10493 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 16, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Joseph Vicarlos Robinson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:22-CR-292-1 ______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Joseph Vicarlos Robinson appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm following conviction of a felony offense, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He argues that his convictions must be vacated under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), because the statutes

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10493 Document: 79-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2025

No. 24-10493

of conviction violate his rights under the Second Amendment facially, but correctly concedes that this claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 18, 2025) (No. 24-6625); United States v. Ruiz, No. 23-10406, 2024 WL 1134725, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished). 1 He also correctly concedes that his Commerce Clause claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Robinson argues for the first time in a supplemental brief that § 922(g)(1) as applied to him also violates his Second Amendment rights in light of Bruen, citing this court’s opinion in Diaz, which issued after he filed his opening brief. We ordinarily refuse to consider arguments that were not presented in the appellant’s opening brief and discern no reason to vary from our ordinary practice under the circumstances presented here. See United States v. Bowen, 818 F.3d 179, 192 n.8 (5th Cir. 2016). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

_____________________ 1 Although an unpublished opinion issued on or after January 1, 1996, is not controlling precedent, it may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).