Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
T.J. Aguilar was convicted and sentenced for receiving a firearm while under felony indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). He appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Aguilar argued that § 922(n) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. He also challenged the enhanced offense level imposed under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4), contending that the district court improperly relied on the Guidelines commentary’s definition of “large capacity magazine.” The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that Aguilar’s Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Quiroz, which had upheld § 922(n) against a Bruen-based challenge.
The court concluded that Aguilar’s Commerce Clause argument was unavailing under plain-error review in light of circuit precedent. It also held that United States v. Martin foreclosed his challenge to the sentencing enhancement based on the commentary’s definition of “large capacity magazine.”
Because summary affirmance resolved the appeal, the court denied as moot the government’s alternative request for additional time to file a brief.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Aguilar’s Bruen-based Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).
- His Commerce Clause challenge failed under plain-error review.
- Circuit precedent also foreclosed his challenge to the large-capacity-magazine sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4).
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, within the Fifth Circuit, challenges to § 922(n) under the Second Amendment remain controlled by United States v. Quiroz. It also reinforces the circuit’s existing treatment of Commerce Clause objections to federal firearm restrictions and sentencing challenges involving large-capacity magazines.
Because the opinion is unpublished and issued on the summary calendar, its principal significance is its application of controlling Fifth Circuit precedent rather than the creation of a new legal rule.