United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-10406 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Juan Antonio Ruiz, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:22-CR-47-1 

______________________________ 

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Juan Antonio Ruiz pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (prohibiting conspiracy), 

841(a)(1) (outlawing possession with intent to distribute controlled 

substance), 841(b)(1)(A) (setting penalty); and possession of a firearm in 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 15, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-10406 Document: 79-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2024
No. 23-10406 

2 

furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (outlining crime and penalty). In challenging the firearm 

conviction for the first time on appeal, he contends § 924(c)(1) is 

unconstitutional as applied to him in the light of New York State Rifle & Pistol 

Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (announcing rule for assessing whether 

statute infringes on Second Amendment). 

Our court first addresses Ruiz’ assertion that the district court never 

had subject-matter jurisdiction because § 924(c)(1) is unconstitutional. See, 

e.g., Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 1999) (“We are obligated 

to address issues of jurisdiction . . . prior to addressing the merits of an 

appeal.”). District courts have “original jurisdiction . . . of all offenses 

against the laws of the United States”, and this jurisdictional grant is invoked 

when an indictment charges a violation of a federal criminal statute. 18 

U.S.C. § 3231; see also United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 

2013). The district court had jurisdiction. See United States v. Williams, 341 

U.S. 58, 66 (1951) (“Even the unconstitutionality of the statute under which 

the proceeding is brought does not oust a court of jurisdiction.”). 

Next, the Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver in Ruiz’ 

earlier-referenced plea agreement. The waiver question is non-jurisdictional, 

and we choose to pretermit it. See, e.g., United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 

230–31 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining appeal waivers are non-jurisdictional). 

Because Ruiz did not raise in district court the other issues he presents 

on appeal, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 

F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Ruiz must show a 

forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to 

reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the 

discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only 

Case: 23-10406 Document: 79-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2024
No. 23-10406 

3 

if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted). 

Ruiz stored and distributed methamphetamine in a residence where 

he lived with his girlfriend. He contends he had a right to possess firearms 

there, notwithstanding his criminal activity (an issue he concedes he did not 

preserve in district court). It is not clear, however, that Bruen or other 

binding authority compels this conclusion. Because Ruiz’ theory requires an 

extension of precedent, he fails to show the requisite clear or obvious error. 

See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023) 

(“Arguments that require the extension of existing precedent cannot meet 

the plain error standard.”). 

Lastly, because the issue was considered in the Government’s brief 

and Ruiz’ reply brief, we will address the sufficiency of the factual basis under 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3) (requiring court to validate 

factual basis before entering judgment on guilty plea). See United States v. 

Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009) (exercising discretion to consider 

issue raised in appellee’s brief and addressed in reply). Under plain-error 

review, our court may look beyond Ruiz’ admissions and “scan the entire 

record for facts supporting his conviction”. United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 

308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Ruiz contends there are insufficient facts to show his firearm 

possession was “in furtherance of” his drug-trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A). The record, however, includes multiple details linking the 

firearms found in his residence with methamphetamine trafficking. See 

United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 412, 414–15 (5th Cir. 2000) 

(outlining examples and factors). And, Ruiz admitted he kept the firearms in 

his residence to protect his money and methamphetamine from robbery. See 

id. at 412 (explaining firearm possession to defend against robbery is example 

Case: 23-10406 Document: 79-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2024
No. 23-10406 

4 

of possession “in furtherance”). The requisite clear-or-obvious error is 

lacking. 

AFFIRMED. 

Judge Oldham would grant the Government’s motion to enforce the appeal 

waiver. 

Case: 23-10406 Document: 79-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2024