Case: 24-50910 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-50910 June 10, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Cristobal Ibarra, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:24-CR-27-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Cristobal Ibarra appeals his guilty plea conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At the time he committed the § 922(g)(1) offense of which he was convicted, Ibarra had multiple prior felony convictions, including a 2014 Arizona conviction for aggravated assault and a 2018 conviction for misconduct involving weapons.

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

Case: 24-50910 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025

No. 24-50910

Ibarra argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him, in light of the test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a merits brief.

Summary affirmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” United States v. Holy Land Found.

For Relief & Dev., 445 F. 3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)). The Government is correct that Ibarra’s constitutional challenges are 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); United States v. Bullock, 123 F.4th 183, (5th Cir. 2024); United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 867-70 (5th Cir. 2025). Because Diaz, Bullock, Traxler, and Alcantar are clearly dispositive, we affirm the district court’s judgment without further briefing. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019).

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.