`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`____________
`
`No. 24-50370
`Summary Calendar
`____________
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`July 17, 2025
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`
`versus
`
`
`Stevie Gomez Contreras,
`
`
`Plaintiff—Appellee,
`
`Defendant—Appellant.
`______________________________
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas
`USDC No. 7:23-CR-206-1
`______________________________
`
`
`Before Haynes, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
`Per Curiam:*
`
`Stevie Gomez Contreras appeals following his conviction for
`possession of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony, in
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Contreras argues that § 922(g)(1) violates
`the Commerce Clause and also violates the Second Amendment, on its face
`and as applied to him, in light of the test set forth in New York State Rifle &
`
`_____________________
`
`* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
`
`
`
`Case: 24-50370 Document: 72-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2025
`
`No. 24-50370
`
`Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He further argues that United
`States v. Giglio, 126 F.4th 1039, 1045-46 (5th Cir. 2025), pertaining to an as-
`applied challenge for a defendant who was serving an ongoing criminal
`sentence when he committed the § 922(g)(1) offense, was incorrectly
`decided, citing United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 467 (5th Cir. 2024), cert.
`denied, No. 24-6625, 2025 WL 1727419 (U.S. June 23, 2025) (mem.). The
`Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative,
`an extension of time to file a brief. Contreras takes no position on the motion
`but concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by current precedent and
`raises them to preserve them for further review.
`
`The parties are correct that Contreras’s facial and as-applied
`challenges are foreclosed. See Giglio, 126 F.4th at 1045-46; United States v.
`Contreras, 125 F.4th 725, 729, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2025); Diaz, 116 F.4th at 462.
`Therefore, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc.
`v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for
`summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension
`of time is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
