221010P.pdf   04/04/2023  United States  v.  Dayne Sitladeen
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-1010
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Loken and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(5)(A) 
   criminalizing possession of a firearm by an alien unlawfully present in 
   the U.S. does not violate the Second Amendment - see United States v. 
   Flores, 663 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) - because unlawful aliens are not 
   part of "the people" to whom the protections of the Second Amendment 
   extend; the decision in Flores is undisturbed by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol 
   Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022); with respect to defendant's equal 
   protection argument, no fundamental constitutional is at stake under Sec. 
   922(g)(5)(A) that would trigger heightened scrutiny; because the statute's 
   differential treatment of unlawfully present aliens is supported by some 
   rational basis - public safety - the statute survives rational-basis 
   scrutiny and defendant's equal protection challenge; as a result, the 
   district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the 
   indictment; the sentencing record supported the district court's decision 
   to depart upward based on defendant's Canadian criminal history; 
   defendant's above-guidelines range sentence was not substantively 
   unreasonable; the district court recognized its discretion to make 
   defendant's U.S. sentence concurrent with a yet-to-be-imposed Canadian 
   sentence, and it did not abuse its discretion in declining to order a 
   concurrent sentence.