Case: 24-50763 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50763 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ August 12, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Gilbert Ramirez, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CR-459-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Gilbert Ramirez, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, 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, Ramirez had a prior felony conviction for robbery. He argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and violates the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-50763 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2025

No. 24-50763

Second Amendment, both on its face 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 a 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 Ramirez’s arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 462, 467-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1727419 (U.S. June 23, 2025) (No. 24-6625); United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 871 (5th Cir. 2025). Because Diaz and Schnur 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.