United States v. Alvarez

Case: 24-50228 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50228

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 16, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Juan Leija Alvarez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:21-CR-433-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Defendant-Appellant Juan Leija Alvarez appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that (1) § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, in violation of the Second Amendment, under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and (2) § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s power to regulate Case: 24-50228 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2025

No. 24-50228 under the Commerce Clause. The Government moves for summary affirmance, contending that both of Alvarez’s contentions are foreclosed by circuit precedent, or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a merits brief. While Alvarez takes no position on the motion, he concedes that his arguments are foreclosed, and he raises them only to preserve them for future review.

Alvarez’s Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1) 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) (holding that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Commerce Clause). As a result, “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” and summary affirmance is appropriate.

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The motion for summary affirmance is accordingly GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.