Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Derrick Deon Brice raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2010). In Alcantar, we rejected the argument that Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), affected our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F.3d at 146. Because § 922(j) is substantially similar to § 922(g), the same result is reached with respect to Brice’s challenge to it. See Luna, 165 F.3d at 319. Finally, in Trejo, we applied the plain error standard to a factual sufficiency claim that was raised for the first time in this court. 610 F.3d at 313.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.