August 27, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Peterson, 24-30043, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), criminal, Second Amendment, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of possessing an unregistered suppressor in violation of various provisions of the National Firearms Act, rejecting Second Amendment challenge, and upholding denial of motion to suppress.
    • George Peterson, a firearms dealer operating out of his home, was investigated by the ATF after multiple undercover purchases revealed regulatory violations, including unreported firearm sales and misrepresentations on his federal license application. Based on this evidence, law enforcement executed a search warrant at his residence and discovered an unregistered homemade suppressor. A grand jury indicted Peterson under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for possession of the unregistered device. He filed two motions: one to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, and another to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The district court denied both motions, after which Peterson entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal.
    • On appeal, Peterson argued that the NFA’s registration requirements for suppressors violated his Second Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that suppressors qualify as “arms” under the Amendment. However, it found the NFA’s regime constitutional under the Supreme Court’s framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The court explained that the NFA operates as a “shall-issue” licensing scheme with objective criteria such as background checks, fingerprints, and a $200 tax, designed to ensure that firearms remain in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Unlike New York’s invalidated “may-issue” regime in Bruen, the NFA does not require applicants to show special need and therefore enjoys a presumption of constitutionality.
    • Peterson attempted to challenge the NFA as applied to him but provided no evidence that the licensing system was abused through exorbitant fees or excessive delays. He admitted that he had simply failed to file the necessary paperwork for his homemade suppressor. His claims that NFA approvals might take up to eight months were unsupported, while the government countered that approvals are often processed in days. The appellate court emphasized that as-applied challenges require specific factual evidence, which Peterson did not present. Accordingly, the presumption of constitutionality remained intact, and his Second Amendment challenge failed.
    • On the Fourth Amendment issue, Peterson argued the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause. The Fifth Circuit held that, regardless of whether probable cause was sufficient, the good-faith exception applied. The magistrate-issued warrant was based on documented undercover operations and regulatory violations, providing at least “indicia of probable cause.” Because the ATF agents reasonably relied on the warrant, the exclusionary rule did not apply, and suppression of the suppressor was unwarranted. Thus, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of both motions and upheld Peterson’s conviction and sentence.

Unpublished decisions

  • Reese v. Wells Fargo, 25-10161, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Smith, Higginson), foreclosure
    • Affirming summary judgment for defendant on claims arising from foreclosure-related eviction of plaintiffs.
  • U.S. v. Wilson, 25-10178, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 25-10179, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Canales-Velasquez, 24-10991, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Marlon v. Marlon, 24-20443, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Richman, Willett), removal
    • Vacating district court’s sua sponte remand order for the removing defendant’s failure to abide by district court procedural rules to attach pleadings from the removed action, on basis that district court’s sua sponte action exceeded its statutory authority.
  • U.S. v. Botello, 25-40220, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Willett, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Iribhogbe v. Clark, 24-40718, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), habeas corpus
    • Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal from dismissal of sec. 2241 petition.
  • U.S. v. Mondragon-Gonzalez, 24-50758, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Oldham, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 480-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, illegal-alien transportation resulting in death, and transportation of illegal aliens.
  • U.S. v. Alberto-Velasquez, 24-51015, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Bogdanov v. Bondi, 24-60664, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Clement, Richman, Willett), immigration
    • Denying Russian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) order finding him not credible; denying his application for, inter alia, asylum and withholding of removal; and ordering him removed.