United States v. Reynaldo Rendon, Jr. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 17-11009      Document: 00514448159         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/26/2018
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 17-11009                           April 26, 2018
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff–Appellee,
    v.
    REYNALDO RENDON, JR., also known as Rey Reynold, also known as Rey
    Rendon,
    Defendant–Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:17-CR-19-1
    Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Reynaldo Rendon, Jr. pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a
    firearm and ammunition. He appeals his conviction, arguing that 18 U.S.C.
    § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.        The Government has filed an unopposed
    motion for summary affirmance arguing that Rendon’s challenge is foreclosed
    by circuit precedent or, alternatively, requesting an extension of time to file its
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 17-11009    Document: 00514448159     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/26/2018
    No. 17-11009
    brief on the merits. The Government does not invoke the waiver provision
    contained in the plea agreement. See United States v. Story, 
    439 F.3d 226
    , 230-
    31 (5th Cir. 2006).
    Rendon’s argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it
    exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause is
    foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 
    733 F.3d 143
    , 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013);
    United States v. Daugherty, 
    264 F.3d 513
    , 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v.
    De Leon, 
    170 F.3d 494
    , 499 (5th Cir. 1999). He concedes as much and raises
    the argument to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, the Government’s
    motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an
    extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment
    of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-11009

Filed Date: 4/26/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021