United States v. Ruben Izaguirre-De La Cruz , 510 F. App'x 233 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4615
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUBEN IZAGUIRRE-DE LA CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00326-D-1)
Submitted: January 16, 2013 Decided: February 14, 2013
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Izaguirre-De La Cruz was indicted for possession
of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5) (2006), and illegal entry of an alien, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2) (2006). He moved to dismiss the first
count, on the ground that § 922(g)(5) violates his Second
Amendment rights, and the district court denied the motion,
holding that an illegal alien’s possession of a firearm falls
outside of the Second Amendment’s scope. He then pled guilty to
the second count, was found guilty by jury of the first count,
and was sentenced to sixteen months’ imprisonment. He now
appeals, contending that the Second Amendment protects the right
of illegal aliens to possess firearms in the home for self-
defense.
Whether Izaguirre-De La Cruz’s conviction under
§ 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment presents a question of
law that this court reviews de novo. See United States v.
Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 316 (4th Cir. 2012). Section 922(g)(5)
does not violate the Second Amendment, because possession of
firearms by illegal aliens does not fall within the amendment’s
scope. United States v. Carpio-Leon, No. 11-5063, 2012 WL
6217606, at *2-*8 (4th Cir. Dec. 14, 2012); see also United
States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding
that to be unconstitutional, the challenged law must burden
2
conduct falling within the Second Amendment’s scope).
Izaguirre-De La Cruz’s Second Amendment challenge therefore
fails.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3