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 *330 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.