United States v. In

Case: 25-11211 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-11211 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 13, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Chamnap In, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CR-128-1 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Chamnap In appeals his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. He argues for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) facially violates the Second Amendment and exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority if the commerce element is interpreted to be satisfied by past interstate travel of the firearm, noting that Case: 25-11211 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2026

No. 25-11211 the arguments are foreclosed. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

We have held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment on its face. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). Appellant’s arguments based on the Commerce Clause are also foreclosed. See United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).

Because the parties correctly conclude that these issues are foreclosed, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its appellate brief is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.