United States v. Castillo
United States v. Castillo
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40419 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REYMUNDO CASTILLO, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-190-1 --------------------
December 9, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reymundo Castillo, III, appeals his conviction under
18 U.S.C. § 922(j) for possession of a stolen firearm.
Castillo argues that the district court erred by refusing to
accept his guilty plea to a charge of violating
18 U.S.C. § 922(n), a charge which was later dismissed by the Government.
The record reflects that Castillo voluntarily withdrew his guilty
plea. Therefore, his argument that the district court erred in
refusing to accept his guilty plea is meritless.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 99-40419 -2-
Castillo also argues that
18 U.S.C. § 922(n) and § 922(j)
are unconstitutional exercises of Congress’ Commerce Clause
power. Because he was not convicted under
18 U.S.C. § 922(n),
Castillo has no standing to challenge the constitutionality of
that statute. See Johnson v. City of Dallas,
61 F.3d 442, 445(5th Cir. 1995).
Title
18 U.S.C. § 922(j) is a constitutional exercise of
Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. See United States v.
Luna,
165 F.3d 316, 321(5th Cir.), cert. denied,
119 S. Ct. 1783(1999). His argument to the contrary has no merit.
Castillo also argues that the district court erred by
refusing to instruct the jury that it had to find the firearm in
question had an explicit connection or substantial effect on
interstate commerce. Such a jury instruction is an incorrect
statement of the law, and Castillo has failed to show the
district court abused its discretion by refusing to give such an
instruction. See United States v. De Leon,
170 F.3d 494, 499(5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___ (No. 98-9979, Oct.
4, 1999).
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished