Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy PINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 653 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 15-10462
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy PINA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy PINA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-10462
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/21/2016
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, David E. Sloan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tommy Pina, Oklahoma City, OK, Pro Se.
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Tommy Pina raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2010). In Alcantar, we rejected the argument that Natl Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, — U.S.—, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), affected our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F,3d at 146. In Trejo, we applied the plain error standard to a factual sufficiency claim that was raised for the first time in this court. 610 F.3d at 313.
Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.