eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2018-05

United States v. Luis Ibarra ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 17-11094      Document: 00514490244         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/29/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-11094                                    Fifth Circuit
Summary Calendar                                FILED
May 29, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LUIS ANTONIO IBARRA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CR-150-1
Before CLEMENT, COSTA, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Luis Antonio Ibarra raises
an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzales,
    40 F.3d 735 
    (5th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Dunigan,
    555 F.3d 501
    , 504-06 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2009). In
    Gonzales, 40 F.3d at 737-38
    , we
held that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Dixon,
    509 U.S. 688 
    (1993), did not overrule Missouri v. Hunter,
    459 U.S. 359
    , 368-69 (1983). Ibarra
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-11094    Document: 00514490244     Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/29/2018
No. 17-11094
also raises an argument that is foreclosed by our decision in United States
v. Alcantar,
    733 F.3d 143
    , 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), which rejected a challenge to
§ 922(g) under Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,
    567 U.S. 519
    , 551-53
(2012).
Additionally, Ibarra raises an argument that is foreclosed by United
States Rawls,
    85 F.3d 240
    , 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996), in which we held that proof
of a firearm’s manufacture in another state satisfies the interstate commerce
element of § 922(g). Finally, our decision in United States v. Rose,
    587 F.3d 695
    , 705-06 (5th Cir. 2009), forecloses Ibarra’s argument that knowledge of the
interstate nexus is an element of the offense under § 922(g).
Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2