Rosario Muniz Tellez appeals his conviction following a jury trial for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). He argues that the district court erred in denying his request for an instruction and jury charge that included the definition of “unlawful user” that this court used in United States v. Herrera, 289 F.3d 311, 323-24 (Herrera I), vacated, United States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (Herrera II). The Government moves for summary affirmance on the ground that Muniz Tellez’s argument is foreclosed by our precedent or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief.

We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cain, 440 F.3d 672, 674 (5th Cir. 2006). Muniz Tellez’s argument that the district court erred in refusing to give the jury a Herrera I instruction is foreclosed by our precedent, particularly our decision in United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832, 837-39 (5th *916 Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2043, 164 L.Ed.2d 798 (2006). See also United States v. McCowan, 469 F.3d 386, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2006); Herrera II, 313 F.3d at 883-85. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED.