17-287-cr United States v. Jimenez 17‐287‐cr United States v. Jimenez 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2017 6 7 (Argued: March 8, 2018 Decided: July 10, 2018) 8 9 Docket No. 17‐287‐cr 10 11 ____________________ 12 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 15 Appellee, 16 17 v. 18 19 JOSE JIMENEZ, 20 21 Defendant‐Appellant. 22 23 ____________________ 24 25 Before: POOLER, RAGGI, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. 26 27 Jose Jimenez pled guilty to possession of ammunition after having been 28 dishonorably discharged from the military, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6). 29 Having properly objected at the district court and reserved his right to appeal, he 30 now challenges the validity of Section 922(g)(6) under the Second Amendment. 1 Assuming that he is entitled to Second Amendment protection, we find that 2 Section 922(g)(6) as applied to Jimenez withstands intermediate scrutiny. 3 Affirmed. 4 ____________________ 5 DANIEL HABIB, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., 6 New York, N.Y., for Defendant‐Appellant. 7 8 SAMUEL RAYMOND, Assistant United States Attorney 9 (Margaret Garnett, Assistant United States Attorney, on 10 the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney 11 for the Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y., 12 for Appellee. 13 14 POOLER, Circuit Judge: 15 Jose Jimenez pled guilty to possession of ammunition after having been 16 dishonorably discharged from the military, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6). 17 Having properly objected at the district court and reserved his right to appeal, he 18 now challenges the validity of Section 922(g)(6) under the Second Amendment. 19 Assuming he is entitled to Second Amendment protection, we find that Section 20 922(g)(6) as applied to Jimenez withstands intermediate scrutiny. Accordingly, 21 we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 22 2 1 BACKGROUND 2 On June 3, 2015, Jose Jimenez was arrested in unlawful possession of a 3 bullet retrieved from his person following an attempted undercover firearms 4 purchase. Jimenez had agreed to drive Oscar Sanchez to the parking lot of a fast 5 food restaurant in the Bronx on June 3, 2015 in exchange for $40. Sanchez had 6 arranged to sell 20 handguns to a person who was, in fact, an undercover 7 detective from the New York Police Department (“NYPD”). Jimenez claims that 8 Sanchez did not inform him of the purpose of the trip. 9 After arriving at the parking lot, the detective and Sanchez got out of their 10 cars, whereupon Sanchez showed the detective a 9‐millimeter handgun and 11 transferred a black bag into the trunk of the detective’s car. At the detective’s 12 request, Sanchez opened the bag. Inside was a box of Capri Sun and a carjack but 13 no guns. No deal having been done, Sanchez removed the bag from the 14 detective’s trunk, got back in the car with Jimenez and an unnamed woman, and 15 they drove away. 16 But that was not the end of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals