United States v. Jalomo

Case: 24-10048 Document: 68-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 24-10048

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 13, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Michael Elias Jalomo,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-46-1

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Michael Elias Jalomo pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He now appeals his conviction on constitutional grounds. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief.

Case: 24-10048 Document: 68-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2025

No. 24-10048

First, Jalomo argues that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Government is correct that Jalomo’s Bruen- based challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 18, 2025) (No. 24-6625).

Next, Jalomo contends that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and that the statute should be construed to require more than the mere movement of a firearm across state lines. However, he correctly concedes that these arguments are foreclosed by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977), and United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145–46 (5th Cir. 2013), and he merely raises these issues to preserve them for further review.

Because summary affirmance is appropriate here, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.