UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

___________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. No. 14-7056 

FELIPE RANGEL-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a 

Felipe Hernandez, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 6:14-CR-00007-JHP-1) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

____________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

____________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.**

____________________________________ 

Law enforcement officers arrested Defendant Felipe Rangel-Hernandez, an illegal 

alien, at his ex-wife’s house based on an outstanding bench-warrant and a threatening 

voicemail he left on his ex-brother-in-law’s phone. The officers located two rifles in the 

bedroom where Defendant was sleeping and corresponding ammunition in his personal 

luggage. Based on these guns and ammunition, a grand jury charged Defendant with, 

among other things, one count of being an illegal alien in possession of firearms, in 

 

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of 

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument.

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 6, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-7056 Document: 01019394732 Date Filed: 03/06/2015 Page: 1 
-2- 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Defendant argued before the district court that 

§ 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. The district court 

rejected both of these arguments. Thereafter, Defendant entered an unconditional guilty 

plea to the § 922(g)(5) violation and the district court sentenced him to six months’ 

imprisonment (time served) followed by a three-year term of supervised release. 

Defendant now appeals, renewing his facial challenge to § 922(g)(5).1

 The 

government argues in response that Defendant waived this argument by his unconditional 

guilty plea and, in any event, that § 922(g)(5) is constitutional. “We have not yet 

squarely addressed whether a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute survives 

a guilty plea.” United States v. Rickett, 535 F. App’x 668, 671 (10th Cir. 2013) 

(unpublished). But cf. United States v. De Vaughn, 694 F.3d 1141, 1154 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(holding in the context of an as-applied challenge that “[w]hen a defendant admits guilt 

of a substantive crime, he cannot reverse course on appeal and claim the criminal statute 

is unconstitutional”). Indeed, our sister circuits have split on the issue. See Rickett, 535 

F. App’x at 671 (collecting cases). 

We need not decide this waiver issue now, however. Even assuming Defendant’s 

facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(5) survived his guilty plea, Defendant 

concedes that binding precedent of this Court forecloses relief on his claim. He only 

 

1

 Defendant appears to have abandoned his as-applied challenge on appeal, and for good 

reason. Our precedent clearly holds that a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives asapplied constitutional challenges, unless expressly reserved. United States v. De Vaughn, 

694 F.3d 1141, 1150, 1153–54 (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Fox, 573 F.3d 1050, 

1052 n.1 (10th Cir. 2009). 

Appellate Case: 14-7056 Document: 01019394732 Date Filed: 03/06/2015 Page: 2 
-3- 

raises this claim to preserve his ability to pursue it in the Supreme Court. Indeed, “We 

are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a 

superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.” In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 

(10th Cir. 1993). Moreover, in United States v. Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 

2012), we held that “§ 922(g)(5) withstands Mr. Huitron–Guizar’s Second Amendment 

and Equal Protection challenges.” Id. at 1170. Defendant does not attempt to distinguish 

his challenge from the challenge brought in Huitron-Guizar and neither Defendant nor 

our independent research has revealed any superseding decisions that call Huitron-Guizar 

into question. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Entered for the Court, 

Bobby R. Baldock 

United States Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-7056 Document: 01019394732 Date Filed: 03/06/2015 Page: 3