The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Karina Deluna for making false statements on federal firearm purchase forms. The court's decision, issued on August 6, 2026, confirmed that Deluna had misrepresented her intentions when buying firearms, stating she was purchasing them for herself when, in fact, she was acquiring them for others. This ruling affects Deluna, who faces an 87-month prison sentence, and highlights the legal consequences of straw purchasing firearms.
The case began when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) received information about Deluna's purchases of eight firearms from a pawn shop in Houston, Texas, between September 2018 and July 2021. One of these firearms was later recovered in Mexico, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of her purchases. The ATF's investigation revealed strong indicators of straw purchasing, a practice where an individual falsely claims to be the actual buyer of a firearm while actually acquiring it for someone else.
Deluna's initial encounter with law enforcement occurred when ATF agents, including Special Agent Benjamin Bynog, visited her home to question her about the firearm purchases. Over the course of three interviews, Deluna's statements varied, and she eventually admitted to purchasing firearms for her sister-in-law's boyfriend, Chino. Despite her confessions, Deluna later contested the voluntariness of her statements during her trial.
The legal proceedings against Deluna escalated when she was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy and making false statements regarding firearm records. She was found guilty of conspiracy and seven counts of making false statements, leading to her sentencing. Deluna received a total of 87 months in prison, which she appealed, arguing that her confessions were obtained involuntarily and that her sentence was unreasonable.
In its ruling, the court addressed several key issues raised by Deluna. The judges considered whether the district court erred in admitting Deluna's recorded statements from her interviews with the ATF. The court found that the statements were voluntary and that the district court did not err in allowing them as evidence. The judges noted, "We agree with an unpublished opinion of a panel of this court that threats to indict or arrest relatives are less coercive when the family member or loved one is plausibly tied to the crime."
Furthermore, the court examined the circumstances surrounding Deluna's interviews. While the third interview was deemed more coercive due to the context of her arrest, the court ultimately ruled that any error in admitting her confession was harmless. The judges determined that the overwhelming evidence against Deluna, including her prior confessions and corroborating testimony from co-defendant Haley Medlin, supported the conviction.
Deluna's appeal also challenged the evidentiary rulings made during her trial, specifically regarding the admission of a Barrett .50 caliber rifle and photographs of firearms found on her phone. The court upheld the admission of both pieces of evidence, stating that they were relevant to the case and did not unfairly prejudice Deluna.
Regarding Deluna's sentence, the court found that her 87-month term was reasonable and within the sentencing guidelines. The judges noted that Deluna's arguments against her sentence did not demonstrate a clear error of judgment by the district court. The court stated, "A sentence within the guidelines is presumed to be reasonable," and Deluna failed to rebut this presumption.
The Fifth Circuit's ruling reinforces the legal framework surrounding firearm purchases and the seriousness of straw purchasing. The decision serves as a reminder of the potential legal repercussions for individuals who provide false information on firearm purchase forms, highlighting the importance of compliance with federal regulations.
Looking ahead, Deluna's options for appeal may be limited, as the Fifth Circuit's ruling is typically considered final unless there are grounds for further review by the Supreme Court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further legal actions Deluna may pursue.