United States v. Burns

Case: 26-60033 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026

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

Fifth Circuit

____________

FILED April 20, 2026

No. 26-60033

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Joshua Ryan Burns,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:25-CR-53-1

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Joshua Ryan Burns appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argues § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment under the test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), both facially and as applied to him. He also argues that § 922(g)(1) is Case: 26-60033 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2026

No. 26-60033 unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. However, he concedes that his claims are foreclosed, and the Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance.

The parties are correct that all of Burns’s claims are foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024) (rejecting facial challenge), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025); United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 866-70 (5th Cir. 2025) (rejecting as-applied challenge); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejecting argument that § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause). Summary affirmance is thus warranted. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.