United States v. Cerrillo

Case: 25-10829 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2026

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

No. 25-10829

FILED March 23, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Robert Carlos Cerrillo,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-66-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Robert Carlos Cerrillo pleaded guilty to a single count of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Following a remand for resentencing, the district court sentenced Cerrillo within the applicable guidelines range to 120 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He challenges his conviction and sentence.

Case: 25-10829 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2026

No. 25-10829

Cerrillo argues that the district court erred in applying the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross-reference to the attempted second-degree murder guideline provision at U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1 because there was insufficient evidence that he intended to kill the victim when he shot him. Because Cerrillo admitted to police that he aimed at the victim and fired a shot, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding an intent to kill and applying the cross-reference. See United States v. Abrego, 997 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2021). Moreover, even if this argument had merit, any error in applying the cross-reference was harmless. See United States v. Guzman- Rendon, 864 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712, 718 (5th Cir. 2010). As Cerrillo acknowledges, his facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.