Case: 24-40173 Document: 97-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-40173 FILED September 5, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jamyia Roclaun Stanfield, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CR-706-1 ______________________________ Before Higginson, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Jamyia Roclaun Stanfield was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His prior felony convictions include (1) unlawful possession of a controlled substance; (2) unlawful deliv- ery of a controlled substance; (3) unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; and (4) possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver.

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

Case: 24-40173 Document: 97-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2025

No. 24-40173

Stanfield raises four challenges to § 922(g)(1) on appeal. As Stanfield concedes, all of his arguments are foreclosed by our precedent.

First, Stanfield’s facial Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, No. 24-6625, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2025 WL 1727419 (U.S. June 23, 2025) (mem.).

Second, Stanfield’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Kimble, 142 F.4th 308, 317–18 (5th Cir. 2025). Under Kimble, “[Stanfield’s] conviction accords with the Second Amendment because Congress can categorically disarm individuals convicted of violent felonies like drug trafficking. That conclusion does not depend on an individualized assessment that [Stanfield] is dangerous.” Id. at 318.

Third, Stanfield’s “equal protection” challenge to § 922(g)(1) under the Fifth Amendment is foreclosed by United States v. Goody, 143 F.4th 617, (5th Cir. 2025) (per curiam).

And finally, Stanfield’s Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145–46 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.