Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-23-10415/USCOURTS-ca5-23-10415-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elmer Alexis Montano Fuentes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-10415 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

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. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

December 4, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-10415 Document: 112-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024
No. 23-10415 

2 

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. 

Case: 23-10415 Document: 112-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2024