United States v. Dorsey
United States v. Dorsey
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21285 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENSON J. DORSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-485-ALL -------------------- October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benson J. Dorsey appeals his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He argues
that
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face
because it does not require that there be a “substantial” effect
on interstate commerce. He contends that, if a substantial
effect on interstate commerce is required for a 18 U.S.C.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-21285 -2-
§ 922(g)(1) conviction, his indictment was deficient because it
did not allege the “substantial” effect on interstate commerce
necessary to render the statute constitutional. He further
contends that the factual basis for his guilty plea, which showed
his intrastate possession of a firearm manufactured outside the
state, was insufficient to establish the nexus with interstate
commerce required by
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Dorsey raises the issues solely to preserve them for
possible Supreme Court review. As Dorsey acknowledges, his
arguments are foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent.
See United States v. Daugherty,
264 F.3d 513, 518(5th Cir.
2001), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 1150(2002); United States v.
Gresham,
118 F.3d 258, 264-65(5th Cir. 1997); United States v.
Kuban,
94 F.3d 971, 973(5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rawls,
85 F.3d 240, 242-43(5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
filing an appellee's brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that an appellee's brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished