United States v. Vecera

── United States v. Vecera ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 10, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50590 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50590 FILED April 10, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Dante Delray Vecera, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:24-CR-521-1 ______________________________ Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Dante Delray Vecera was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced to 125 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He also contends that the statute exceeds _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 25-50590 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2026 No. 25-50590 Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. Vecera concedes, however, that each of these arguments is foreclosed. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. The parties are correct that Vecera’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). His as-applied challenge is likewise foreclosed. See United States v. Alaniz, 146 F.4th 1240, 1241-42 (5th Cir. 2025). And his Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed as well. See United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023). Summary affirmance is therefore appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2