U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2025

United States v. Moore

United States v. Moore
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided December 15, 2025

United States v. Moore

Opinion

Case: 25-50396 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-50396 December 15, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ashley Moore, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-218-2 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Ashley Moore appeals her conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). She argues, as she did in the district court, that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment facially and as applied to her and that it also exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The Government has filed an unopposed _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50396 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2025

No. 25-50396

motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief. Moore concedes that her arguments are foreclosed.

We have held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). Also, Moore’s as-applied challenge fails because individuals who commit this offense while on supervised release may be disarmed. See United States v. Giglio, 126 F.4th 1039, 1044 (5th Cir. 2025). Additionally, her Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Its alternative motion for an extension of time to file its appellate brief and view and obtain sealed documents is DENIED as moot. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.