USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.























                                         -2-