
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Danilo SANCHEZ-CACERES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-20389
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 24, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Danilo Sanchez-Caceres (Sanchez) appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm as an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). Sanchez asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unconstitutional search and that § 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in his case. As Sanchez acknowledges, the latter argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001).

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its Fourth Amendment rulings de novo. United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir.2003). Although based upon an anonymous tip, the investigatory stop and frisk did not violate Sanchez’s Fourth Amendment rights. See United States v. Bolden, 508 F.3d 204, 206 n. 2 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 485 (5th Cir.2002). The tip concerned on-going illegal activity by a finite group of individuals, of which Sanchez was a member. Agents coiToborated the tip prior to initiating the stop by sending a known, reliable informant to the nightclub to confirm that at least one of the security guards was an illegal alien who had carried a firearm in the past. Agents also personally observed that one of the security guards was carrying a visible firearm. Unlike Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271-72, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000), law enforcement officers here had the means to test the reliability of the tip, and they confirmed the reliability of the tip’s allegation of illegality before acting on it. The pat down of the four security guards was a reasonable precaution in light of the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     