United States v. Flores
| Decision Date | 16 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–1550.,11–1550. |
| Citation | 663 F.3d 1022 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joaquin Bravo FLORES, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.Andrea K. George, AFPD, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
Michael A. Dees, AUSA, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Prior report: 2010 WL 4720223.
Joaquin Bravo Flores was indicted on a charge of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). Flores moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(5)(A) was facially unconstitutional in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). The district court 1 denied the motion, and Flores appeals. Agreeing with the Fifth Circuit that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to aliens illegally present in this country, United States v. Portillo–Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir.2011), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 2, 2011) (No. 11–7200), we affirm.
1. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
...aliens, these holdings are not difficult.28 See United States v. Huitron–Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir.2012) ; United States v. Flores, 663 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam and without significant discussion); United States v. Portillo–Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir.2011). It is signifi......
-
Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
...aliens, these holdings are not difficult.28See United States v. Huitron–Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir.2012); United States v. Flores, 663 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam and without significant discussion); United States v. Portillo–Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir.2011). It is significa......
-
Velazquez v. United States, 2:10-CR-110
...'the people' in the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not include aliens illegally in the United States"); United States v. Flores, 663 F.3d 1022, 1023 (8th Cir. 2011) ("the protections of the Second Amendmentdo not extend to aliens illegally present in this country"). While the Six......
-
United States v. Singh
...illegal aliens given Heller ’s descriptions of the right extending to those in "the political community"), United States v. Flores , 663 F.3d 1022, 1023 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit), and United States v. Carpio-Leon , 701 F.3d 974, 979 (4th Cir. 2012) ("[I]......
-
Due Process in Removal Proceedings After Thuraissigiam.
...See id. at 671-72. (205.) See United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437, 440-42 (5th Cir. 2011). (206.) United States v. Flores, 663 F.3d 1022, 1022-23 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (adopting the Fifth Circuit's holding in (207.) United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 276 (1990......
-
Ready. Aim. Fire! the Eleventh Circuit Takes Its Shot at the Second Amendment's Application to Illegal Aliens
...of the U.S. § 722 (1987).78. United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011).79. Id. at 439. 80. United States v. Flores, 663 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2011).81. United States v. Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2012).82. United States v. Carpio-Leon, 701 F.3d 974 (4th Cir. ......