United States v. Robinson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-10563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-10563 Document: 70-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-10563 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 17, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Shaun Marqus Robinson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-159-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Shaun Marquis Robinson was convicted of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal and proceeding pro se, he argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment because, inter alia, the statute impedes a citizen’s Second Amendment right to armed defense and violates various executive orders.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10563 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2026

No. 25-10563

The Government has moved for summary affirmance on the grounds that Robinson’s Second Amendment challenges are either foreclosed or waived. In the alternative, it moves for an extension of time to file a brief. We conclude that further briefing is unnecessary. Robinson asserts that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to him. His facial challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). Similarly, Robinson’s as-applied challenge is also foreclosed, despite any arguments to the contrary, based on his previous felony conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See United States v. Betancourt, 139 F.4th 480, 483-84 (5th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 2026 WL 135617 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026) (No. 25-5514). Accordingly, the Government’s motions for summary affirmance and extension of time are DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.