Case: 23-40365 Document: 00517059997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED February 8, 2024 No. 23-40365 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Miguel Salinas, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:22-CR-368-1 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Miguel Salinas, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Salinas contends that his guilty plea is invalid because (1) § 922(g) was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and (2) satisfying § 922(g)’s interstate-nexus _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-40365 Document: 00517059997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2024

No. 23-40365

element requires more than an admission that a firearm was manufactured outside of, and thus imported into, the state in which it was possessed.

Because Salinas did not object to the district court’s acceptance of his guilty plea, let alone on either of the bases he raises on appeal, we review only for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009); United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). To show plain error, Salinas must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he satisfies the first three requirements, we may, in our discretion, remedy the error if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Salinas fails to make the requisite showing. He cites no binding authority from this court or the Supreme Court holding § 922(g) to be unconstitutional, either facially or as applied, in light of Bruen. A “lack of binding authority is often dispositive in the plain-error context.” United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). Absent such authority, the unconstitutionality of § 922(g) in light of Bruen is neither clear nor obvious. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023).

Similarly, Salinas cites no binding authority for his argument that satisfying § 922(g)’s interstate-commerce nexus requires more than an admission that the relevant firearm was manufactured outside of the state in which it was possessed. See Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 538. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has held that § 922(g)’s interstate-commerce nexus requires no more than “the minimal nexus that the firearm[s] have been, at some time, in interstate commerce.” Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977). Salinas admitted that the firearm he possessed in Texas was manufactured outside of Texas, meaning that the gun must, at some point,

Case: 23-40365 Document: 00517059997 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2024

No. 23-40365

have been in interstate commerce. The district court thus did not clearly or obviously err in accepting his guilty plea. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court is in all respects AFFIRMED.