United States v. Cordova

── United States v. Cordova ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 24-50564 Document: 74-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 20, 2026 No. 24-50564 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Peter Villa Cordova, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-31-1 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Peter Villa Cordova pled guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).* His prior felony convictions include drug possession and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. _____________________ * Cordova pled guilty without a written agreement. Here, all sides agree that Cordova’s guilty plea did not waive his right to bring this appeal. That is because he raised his as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) in his motion to dismiss the indictment. Cf. Class v. United States, 583 U.S. 174, 178–82 (2018). And this court has allowed such challenges to proceed. United States v. Gil, No. 23-50525, 2024 WL 2186916 (5th Cir. May 15, 2024) (per curiam). Case: 24-50564 Document: 74-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 No. 24-50564 On appeal, he argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution, as applied to him. This circuit has a well-trod approach to such challenges. See United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 462, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). As we have explained, there is a “tradition of disarming individuals . . . whose underlying convictions stemmed from the threat and commission of violence with a firearm.” United States v. Bollock, 123 F.4th 183, 185 (5th Cir. 2024) (per curiam). We have extended such logic to disarming people convicted of violent offenses. See id.; United States v. Arredondo, No. 24-50386, 2025 WL 1249901, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) (per curiam) (robbery conviction); United States v. Davis, No. 24-20258, 2025 WL 958265, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (per curiam) (misuse of firearms). Such cases explain that some offenders can pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of others.” United States v. Reyes, 141 F.4th 682, 686 (5th Cir. 2025) (per curiam). And we have held that people pose just such a threat when they evade arrest in a motor vehicle. See United States v. Simpson, 152 F.4th 611, 614 (5th Cir. 2025). That logic controls this case. Cordova engaged in a vehicular evasion of arrest. Given that “vehicular pursuits” are “often catastrophic,” Cordova’s decision to use a car to evade the police is probative of his dangerousness. Cf. Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295, 324 (2021) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in the judgment); United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Cordova’s decisions posed a risk to his fellow citizens and demonstrate that he poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others. Thus, his challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails. AFFIRMED.