USA v. Tejada-Cruz, No. 23-11011 (5th Cir. 2024)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-11011 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-11011 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED May 6, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Miguel Tejada-Cruz, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-42-1 ______________________________ Before Duncan, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Miguel Tejada-Cruz pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon and one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was sentenced to a total of 75 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, he first presents a preserved argument that inchoate offenses are not included within _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-11011 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 No. 23-11011 the definition of a “controlled substance offense” in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2021). Second, he presents two unpreserved constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause and under the Second Amendment based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. Tejada-Cruz correctly concedes that his arguments are foreclosed under the applicable standards of review. See United States v. Vargas, 74 F.4th 673, 680-90 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 828 (2024); United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2024) (No. 23-6769). Therefore, summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.