United States Court of Appeals

for 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, and 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: 03/18/2024
No. 23-50333

c/w No. 23-50341

2

him to a within-guidelines 115-month term of imprisonment and to a threeyear period of supervised release. Vargas’s supervised release in case 

number 7:16-CR-203-1 was revoked, and Vargas was sentenced to a 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 adequate 

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. CotoMendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court 

provided an adequate explanation. There 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 (5th Cir. 2009).

For 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, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023). Any Second Amendment 

violation is not clear or obvious. See id. 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: 03/18/2024
No. 23-50333

c/w No. 23-50341

3

should be treated differently for Second Amendment purposes. He has failed 

to show reversible plain error. See Jones, 84 F.4th at 574. 

However, the 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 REMANDED

for correction of the clerical error. 

Case: 23-50333 Document: 58-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2024