United States v. Moreno

Case: 25-50731 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50731 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 27, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Guadalupe Moreno, Defendant—Appellant, consolidated with _____________ No. 25-50733 _____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Guadalupe Moreno, III, Defendant—Appellant, ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Case: 25-50731 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

USDC Nos. 7:20-CR-190-2, 7:25-CR-52-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * In this consolidated appeal, Guadalupe Moreno challenges his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction and the revocation of his supervised release, asserting that the statute of his conviction violates the Second Amendment pursuant to the holding in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Additionally, he argues that the statute exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, or alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Moreno takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance but concedes that his arguments are foreclosed. He has abandoned any argument concerning the revocation of his supervised release by failing to raise it on appeal. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010).

The parties are correct that Moreno’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges are foreclosed, as is his Commerce Clause challenge.

See United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 870-71 (5th Cir. 2025); United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025); United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023).

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

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