Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-213-1

Before Jones and Graves, Circuit Judges , and Rodriguez, District Judge . *

Juan Alaniz was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals on the grounds that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it (1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, (2) facially violates the Second Amendment, and (3) violates the Second Amendment as applied toPage 2 him. This court rejects Alaniz's first two arguments because they are foreclosed. United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Diaz , 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied , No. 24-6625, 2025 WL 1727419 (2025). We review Alaniz’s as-applied challenge de novo . United States v. Betancourt , 139 F.4th 480, 482 (5th Cir. 2025).

'The plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct prohibited by § 922(g)(1) . . . . The burden thus shifts to the government to demonstrate that regulating [Alaniz’s] possession of a firearm is ‘consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.'' Diaz , 116 F.4th at 467 (quoting N.Y. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 24, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2130 (2022)). '[T]he challenged regulation” must be “‘ relevantly similar’ to laws our tradition is understood to permit.” United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269, 274 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Rahimi , 602 U.S. 680, 692, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1898 (2024) (quoting Bruen , 597 U.S. at 29, 142 S. Ct. at 2132)). Concretely, the government must establish that “founding era law confirms that our country has a historical tradition of severely punishing individuals convicted of” crimes like those of the defendant. United States v. Bullock , 123 F.4th 183, 185 (5th Cir. 2024).

Alaniz has state felony convictions for illegally possessing a controlled substance and burglary. Founding-era burglary laws support the constitutionality of disarming felony burglary convicts under § 922(g)(1). United States v. Schnur , 132 F.4th 863, 870-71 (5th Cir. 2025); see also United States v. Quiroz , 125 F.4th 713, 724-25 (5th Cir. 2025) (§ 922(n)). Alaniz contends, however, that his burglary conviction is beyond our consideration because his controlled substance conviction was the only explicit predicate underlying his § 922(g)(1) conviction. We recently rejected that argument in an unpublished case. United States v. Davis , No. 24-20258, 2025 WL 958265, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2025). Two other circuits rejected it in published opinions. Pitsilides v. Barr , 128 F.4th 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2025); United States Page 3v. Williams , 113 F.4th 637, 659-60 (6th Cir. 2024).¹ Considering 'a defendant’s entire criminal record . . . makes sense, given that the government doesn’t need to prove the specific predicate felony in securing a conviction under § 922(g)(1) in the first place.” Williams , 113 F.4th at 660 (citing Old Chief v. United States , 519 U.S. 172, 117 S. Ct. 644 (1997)).

For his position, Alaniz cites only United States v. Contreras , 125 F.4th 725, 730 (5th Cir. 2025). There, the court stated that the defendant's “criminal history includes three offenses, but the only pertinent offense is a user in possession of a firearm charge; as a felony conviction it is the predicate offense underlying the § 922(g)(1) conviction.” Id. But '[t]he other two offenses were . . . misdemeanor offenses and not relevant here as they are not predicate offenses.” Id. n.2. The court's reference to 'predicate offenses' only supports Alaniz's argument when taken out of context: Contreras's other convictions were irrelevant not because they were not explicit predicates, but because they were misdemeanors irrelevant to § 922(g)(1).

This court may consider Alaniz’s burglary conviction. His as-applied challenge is therefore foreclosed by circuit precedent. See Schnur , 132 F.4th at 870–71. We AFFIRM .