USA v. Daniel Guerrero, No. 19-10108 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10108 Document: 00515145989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-10108 Summary Calendar FILED October 4, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANIEL GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:18-CR-21-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Guerrero appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and his within-guidelines sentence of 18 months of imprisonment. He raises arguments relating to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and the sufficiency of the factual basis in support of his guilty plea. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, which Guerrero does not oppose. In the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-10108 Document: 00515145989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 No. 19-10108 alternative, the Government seeks an extension of time to file its brief. For the following reasons, we dispense with further briefing and AFFIRM. First, Guerrero argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as interpreted by this court and that the factual basis in support of his guilty plea is insufficient because it does not establish a constitutionally sufficient connection between the firearm he possessed and interstate commerce. As he concedes, these arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). Second, Guerrero argues that the factual basis in support of his guilty plea is insufficient because it does not establish that he knew that the firearm had traveled in interstate commerce. We have concluded that a § 922(g)(1) conviction does not require proof that a defendant knew that the firearm had traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1988). Guerrero does not articulate any argument that this specific holding in Dancy has been unequivocally overruled by Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2196 (2019). See Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 145-46 (discussing this court’s rule of orderliness). In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief, are DENIED. 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.
