Court Opinion

ID: 9957117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 18:01:15.041977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.701226
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10213            Document: 91-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/03/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                     No. 23-10213
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                   April 3, 2024
                                   ____________
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

David Jimenez,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CR-278-1
                   ______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Oldham and Ramirez, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       David Jimenez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He now challenges—for the first time
on appeal—that: (1) § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, in light of
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022), and

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10213       Document: 91-1       Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/03/2024

                                 No. 23-10213

(2) § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority
under the Commerce Clause. We review both arguments for plain error.
       Both arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v.
Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023) (per curiam) (rejecting Bruen
challenge to § 922(g)(1) on plain error); id. at 573 (rejecting Commerce
Clause challenge to § 922(g)(1) on plain error).
       AFFIRMED.

                                      2