United States v. Bowden

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-1692

UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR., Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this court issued on October 28, 1996 is amended as follows:

On page 2, line 6, correct the spelling of "inerrelated" to "interrelated."

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-1692

UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR., Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]

Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Brett D. Baber and Rudman & Winchell on brief for appellant. Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, James L. McCarthy and Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.

October 28, 1996

Per Curiam. David L. Bowden appeals from his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The government has moved for summary affirmance pursuant to Loc. R. 27.1. We grant the government's motion for the following reasons.

Bowden makes three interrelated arguments. First he contends that 922(g) is unconstitutional under the reasoning of United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995). "This issue is no longer open in this circuit." United States v. Joost, 92 F.3d 7, 14 (1st Cir. 1996). Bowden's remaining arguments are that 922(g) requires proof that possession of the firearm had a "substantial effect" upon interstate commerce, and that the jury instructions were flawed for not including that requirement. In United States v. Blais, No. 95-1093, slip op. at 8 (1st Cir. August 28, 1996), we rejected precisely the arguments that Bowden makes here "about Lopez's alteration of the Scarborough standard of minimal nexus."

Bowden's conviction is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.