United States v. Wesley
United States v. Wesley
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20083 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROY EDGAR WESLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-446-ALL -------------------- October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roy Edgar Wesley (“Wesley”) 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). Wesley contends that
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him because the
mere possession of a firearm that was manufactured in another
state does not constitute a substantial effect on interstate
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-20083 -2-
commerce. This argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Daugherty,
264 F.3d 513, 518(5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 1150(2002). Wesley argues that his conviction is invalid
because the indictment did not allege that his firearms
possession had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. We
rejected this argument in United States v. Gresham,
118 F.3d 258, 264-65(5th Cir. 1997).
Wesley also argues that the district court erred when it
included in its written judgment conditions of supervised release
that were not orally pronounced at sentencing and when it
delegated authority to the probation office regarding his
conditions of supervised release. These arguments were rejected
in United States v. Warden,
291 F.3d 363, 364-65(5th Cir. 2002).
Wesley concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by this
court’s precedent, but seeks to preserve the arguments for
further review. Because Wesley’s arguments are foreclosed by
this court’s precedent, the district court’s judgment and
sentence are AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished