United States v. Sanches, 86 F.4th 680

Sanches straw-purchased a 9mm handgun, ammunition, and accessories at a pawn shop for her boyfriend Angel Medina, a convicted felon; she signed ATF Form 4473 falsely answering she was the actual buyer.
Surveillance and phone records show Sanches texted Medina during the purchase and later gave him the firearm; Medina used that firearm to shoot and severely injure two people a week later.
During the police pursuit, Sanches texted Medina to "dump" the gun and gave false information to police; she later admitted to purchasing the items and lying on the ATF form in an ATF interview.
Sanches pled guilty to making a false statement in connection with the purchase of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)) and transferring a firearm to a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1)); she did not challenge the statutes' constitutionality in the district court.
Presentence report calculated an advisory guidelines range of 12–18 months after a two-level obstruction adjustment; the government sought 120 months, the defense sought within-guidelines, and the district court varied upward to 60 months.
On appeal Sanches argued (1) her § 922(d)(1) and § 922(a)(6) convictions are unconstitutional under Bruen and (2) the 60-month upward variance was substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate standard of review for Sanches's Second Amendment challenges	Gov't: Challenges were forfeited in district court; plain-error review applies	Sanches: de novo review should apply	Court: Plain-error review applies because she did not raise the constitutional claims below
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) (transfer to prohibited person) under Bruen	Gov't: § 922(d)(1) is presumptively constitutional and Sanches forfeited challenge	Sanches: Bruen requires historical analog analysis and implicates § 922(d)(1)	Court: Even assuming error, not clear or obvious under plain-error; conviction affirmed
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (false statement on ATF form) under Bruen	Gov't: § 922(a)(6) remains valid and challenge was forfeited	Sanches: If § 922(d)(1) falls, § 922(a)(6) must too because it criminalizes straw purchases to prohibited persons	Court: No binding precedent shows § 922(a)(6) unconstitutional; error not clear or obvious under plain-error; conviction affirmed
Substantive reasonableness of 60-month upward variance	Gov't: Sentence justified by aggravating conduct and not greater than necessary	Sanches: Court overemphasized Medina's conduct and undervalued her mitigating history	Held: No abuse of discretion; district court adequately explained variance and sentence is reasonable

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (announcing historical-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023) (applying Bruen to invalidate § 922(g)(8))
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (articulating four-prong plain-error framework)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing variances for reasonableness)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizing individual right to possess firearms in the home)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
United States v. McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2022) (lack of binding authority often dispositive in plain-error context)
United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281 (5th Cir. 2022) (plain-error requires straightforward application of existing precedent)