United States v. Sowe

Case: 25-10821 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-10821 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ January 7, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Joseph Sowe, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-357-1 ______________________________ Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Joseph Sowe pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that this court’s precedent misinterprets § 922(g) because the statute requires more than merely past interstate travel at an indeterminate time and that, as interpreted by this _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10821 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2026

No. 25-10821 court, the statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

He also argues that the statute is unconstitutional on its face in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He concedes his arguments are foreclosed but nevertheless raises the arguments to preserved them for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief.

As he concedes, Sowe’s Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed.

See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). The parties are also correct that Sowe’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). Because summary affirmance is appropriate here, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.