Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio Chavarria DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 620 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 15-10080
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio Chavarria DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio Chavarria DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10080
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lisa J. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura S. Harper, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Sergio Chavarria Delgado raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir.2013). In Abantar, we rejected the argument that Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012) (NFIB), af fected our' prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F.3d at 146. Because 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) is substantially similar to § 922(g), the same result is reached with respect to Delgado's challenge to it. See United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir.1999). As Delgado acknowledges, his challenge to § 922(g)(1) and (j) is foreclosed by our jurisprudence, and, as explained in Aban-tar, NFIB does not change this result. The Government's unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternate motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.