Case: 24-40137 Document: 91-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 31, 2025 No. 24-40137 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Ali Danial Hemani, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-18-1 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * A grand jury charged Ali Danial Hemani with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the Government appealed. In the meantime, various decisions have occurred and, most relevant at this point, our court in United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), ruled on an “as-applied” _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-40137 Document: 91-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2025

No. 24-40137

case similar to this one. As here, Connelly concerned a motion to dismiss the indictment where the government did not seek to prove that Connelly was unlawfully using a controlled substance at the time she was found in possession of a firearm. Our court concluded that, because there was no effort to show that Connelly, despite being a regular drug user, was intoxicated at the time she was arrested possessing a firearm, applying § 922(g)(3) to her was unconstitutional as applied. 1 Following that decision, Hemani filed a Rule 28(j) letter stating we should affirm the court’s dismissal. Based on that same case, the Government filed a motion for summary affirmance (joined by Hemani) because, despite disagreeing with that case, it concluded that it applies here and is not relevantly distinguishable. 2 Thereafter, another panel of our court issued an opinion in United States v. Daniels, No. 22-60596, applying Connelly in the context of a § 922(g)(3) conviction. 2025 WL 33402 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2025). There, our court held that Daniels’s conviction was unconstitutional because of jury instructional error. Daniels did not address whether the government’s evidence was deficient, holding only that the jury was improperly instructed.

Here, the Government concedes its evidence is deficient under Connelly’s binding precedent and that this deficiency is dispositive.

Given the parties’ agreement on summary affirmance and the application of our precedent here, we AFFIRM.

_____________________ It denied the facial challenge.

While seeking summary affirmance, it reserves the right for further review.