24-2088-cr United States v. Aramboles

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of October, two thousand twenty-five.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, RICHARD C. WESLEY, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. __________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. 24-2088-cr

FIDEL ARAMBOLES,

Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________________________

FOR APPELLEE: DANA R. MCCANN (Nathan Rehn, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Matthew Podolsky, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: DARRELL FIELDS, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York (Arun Subramanian, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment entered on July 26, 2024 is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Fidel Aramboles (“Aramboles”) appeals from his July 26,

2024 judgment of conviction, rendered after Aramboles pleaded guilty to one count of

knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of

(g)(1). On appeal,

Aramboles challenges his conviction, arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional both

facially and as applied to him. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining

facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary

to explain our decision.

Aramboles challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), citing to New York State

Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen,

(2022). But our recent decision in Zherka v.

Bondi forecloses his arguments. See

, 75, 93, 96 (2d Cir. 2025) (holding that

§ 922(g)(1) is constitutional both facially and as applied to convicted felons, regardless of

whether the crime of conviction is violent or nonviolent). Because our reasoning in Zherka applies with equal force here, Aramboles’s facial and as-applied challenges to the

constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) fail. Aramboles raises no other challenges to his

conviction.

* * *

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court