Case: 24-11035 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-11035 March 31, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Antrell Jamere Grimes, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CR-495-1 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Jones, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Antrell Jamere Grimes pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Grimes raises constitutional challenges to his conviction. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-11035 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2025

No. 24-11035

Grimes acknowledges that each of his arguments are foreclosed, but nonetheless raises the arguments to preserve them for further review.

Grimes first argues that § 922(g)(1) requires more than merely past interstate travel at an indeterminate time. Alternatively, if this interpretation is correct, then Grimes contends that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The parties correctly conclude that both of these arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

Grimes also argues that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The parties are correct that this argument 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). Any as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) also fails because Grimes unlawfully possessed the firearm while on probation. See United States v. Giglio, 126 F.4th 1039, 1044- (5th Cir. 2025).

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 to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.