United States v. Guadalupe Alcantar, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20452

Alcantar, a convicted felon (prior aggravated assault conviction), was found during a state drug investigation with cocaine and drug-manufacturing materials in his bedroom and a dismantled 12‑gauge shotgun in three pieces.
He was indicted federally under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (felon in possession of a firearm) and under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5871 (unregistered firearm); he pleaded guilty to the felon‑in‑possession charge while preserving appellate issues.
The PSR recommended a four‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because the firearm was possessed in connection with another felony (state charge: possession with intent to deliver).
Alcantar objected, arguing the disassembled state of the gun, lack of ammunition, and his asserted inability to assemble it made the firearm incapable of facilitating drug distribution.
The district court adopted the PSR, credited ATF evidence that the gun could be assembled in 10–30 seconds, applied the four‑level enhancement, and sentenced Alcantar to 63 months.
On appeal Alcantar challenged (1) the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause and (2) the applicability of the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on both grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (Commerce Clause)	Alcantar: § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power (preserved for appeal; recent Supreme Court decisions cast doubt).	Government: Fifth Circuit precedent upholding § 922(g)(1) controls; no intervening Supreme Court decision has overruled that precedent.	Affirmed — issue foreclosed by binding Fifth Circuit precedent (Wallace and subsequent cases); National Federation did not overrule that precedent.
Applicability of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement	Alcantar: Disassembled firearm, no ammo, and his alleged inability to assemble it meant the gun could not facilitate drug trafficking, so enhancement inapplicable.	Government: Firearm found in close proximity to drugs and paraphernalia; ATF opinion showed quick assembly (10–30 sec); application note 14(B)(ii) applies automatically for firearms in close proximity to drug‑related items.	Affirmed — district court’s factual finding of proximity and potential to facilitate was plausible; enhancement properly applied under comment 14(B)(ii).

United States v. Wallace, 889 F.2d 580 (5th Cir.) (Fifth Circuit precedent upholding § 922(g)(1) under Commerce Clause)
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (setting limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause power)
Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) (Commerce Clause jurisprudence referenced)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (Commerce Clause jurisprudence referenced)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (decision argued by Alcantar but held not to overrule § 922(g)(1) precedent)
United States v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining automatic application of enhancement when firearm is in close proximity to drug paraphernalia)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (treating Sentencing Guidelines application notes as authoritative unless inconsistent)
United States v. Paulk, 917 F.2d 879 (5th Cir.) (noting that unloaded or broken guns can still be useful in crimes)