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.

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

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.