Case: 25-50040 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50040 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ August 5, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Khalid Carroll McMaryion, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-135-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Khalid Carroll McMaryion appeals following his conviction for possession of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). McMaryion argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause and also violates the Second Amendment, on its face and as applied to him, in light of the test set forth in New York State _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50040 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2025

No. 25-50040

Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He further argues that United States v. Giglio, 126 F.4th 1039, 1045-46 (5th Cir. 2025), pertaining to an as-applied challenge for a defendant who was serving an ongoing criminal sentence when he committed the § 922(g)(1) offense, was incorrectly decided, citing United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 467 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1727419 (U.S. June 23, 2025). The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief. McMaryion takes no position on the motion but concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by current precedent and raises them to preserve them for further review.

The parties are correct that McMaryion’s facial and as-applied challenges are foreclosed. See Giglio, 126 F.4th at 1045-46; United States v. Contreras, 125 F.4th 725, 729, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2025); Diaz, 116 F.4th at 462.

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