Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier Lopez MADRID, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 703 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: No. 16-10306
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier Lopez MADRID, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 560–560

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier Lopez MADRID, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10306.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2017
Filed November 20, 2017
William J. Edelman, Meredith Blagden Osborn, Assistant U.S., J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Carmen Anamaria Smarandoiu, Federal Public Defenders Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Javier Lopez Madrid appeals from the district court's order affirming the judgment of conviction entered by a magistrate judge following Lopez's guilty plea to carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 and California Penal Code § 25400(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez contends that his conviction is unconstitutional because it violates his rights under the Second Amendment. Contrary to the government's argument, Lopez has standing to present a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted. See Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 217, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 180 L.Ed.2d 269 (2011). But, as Lopez acknowledges, his claim is foreclosed by Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.