United States v. Sarvey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States v. Sarvey

Opinion

Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

3-19-2003

USA v. Sarvey Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 02-2247

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

Recommended Citation "USA v. Sarvey" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 733. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/733

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 02-2247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RICKY LYNN SARVEY,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 01-cr-00055) District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 14, 2003

Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 19, 2003)

OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

Ricky Lynn Sarvey conditionally pled guilty to the crime of being a felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922

(g), preserving his right to appeal the question whether § 922(g)

“is unconstitutional on its face or as applied in this case because Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause in passing the statute.” Sarvey concedes that our decision in United States v.

Singletary,

268 F.3d 196

(3d Cir. 2001), forecloses relief on his appeal and so raises this issue only to

preserve it for en banc rehearing before this Court or for review by the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to Singletary,

268 F.3d 196

, the District Court correctly rejected Sarvey’s

constitutional challenge. We therefore affirm.

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing Opinion.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro Circuit Judge

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished