# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 23 - 50333 **consolidated with** No. 23 - 50341

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Juan Jesus Vargas,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 7:22 - CR - 256 -1, 7:16 - CR - 203 -1

**______________________________** Before **King, Haynes, an** d **Graves,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Juan Jesus Vargas pleaded guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) by being a felon in possession of ammunition , 1 and the district court sentenced

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. 1 His previous felony convictions include aggravated assault via shooting someone to kill them. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 18, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50333 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024No. 23 - 50333 c/w No. 23 - 50341

2 him to a within - guidelines 115 - month term of imprisonment and to a three year period of supervised release. Vargas’s supervised release in ca se number 7:16 - CR - 203 - 1 was revoked, and Vargas was sentenced to a consecutive 24 - month term of imprisonment. Timely notices of appeal were filed, and the two appeals have been consolidated. Vargas contends that the district court failed to provide an a dequate explanation of its application of the statutory sentencing factors. Vargas’s request for a sentence in the middle of the range did not preserve this procedural error, and our review is for plain error . See United States v. Coto Mendoza , 986 F.3d 583, 585 - 86 (5th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court provided an adequate explanation. T here was no error , plain or otherwise , with respect to the adequacy of the district court’s reasons. See id. at 586 - 87 ; see also Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 - 57 (2007) . Vargas also asserts that the sentences were substantively unreasonable. Vargas has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded to within - Guidelines sentences. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5 th Cir. 2009) . F or the first time on appeal , Vargas also asserts that § 922(g) violates the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. He invokes United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen , 142 S. Ct . 2111 (2022). Our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Vargas’s Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Jones , 88 F.4th 571, 57 3 - 7 4 (5th Cir. 2023) . Any Second Amendment violation i s not clear or obvious. See i d. Although Vargas attempts to distinguish Jones because his offense involves ammunition, he has not pointed to any binding authority holding that ammunition and firearms Case: 23-50333 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2024No. 23 - 50333 c/w No. 23 - 50341

3 should be treated differently for Second Amendment purpo ses . He has failed to show reversible plain error. See Jones , 84 F.4th at 574. However, t he criminal judgment states incorrectly that Vargas was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, rather than ammunition. Thus, we remand for correction of the clerical error . See **Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.**  The judgments are **AFFIRMED** , and this matter is **REMA NDED**  for correction of the clerical error. Case: 23-50333 Document: 58-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2024