UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20168 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DELTON JUDE OVEAL,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-01-CR-292-1) _________________________________________________________________ January 22, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Delton Oveal appeals his jury conviction for being a felon in

possession of a firearm. He contends: (1) the evidence was

insufficient to support a finding that he possessed the firearm;

(2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that his possession

of the firearm affected interstate commerce and

(g)(1) is an unconstitutional extension of Congress’s Commerce

Clause powers; (3) the district court abused its discretion by not

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. giving Oveal’s requested jury instruction and by instructing the

jury as it did; and (4) his wife’s testimony about her 1990 credit-

card-abuse conviction was erroneously admitted and prejudiced his

defense.

In reviewing an insufficient evidence claim, we must determine

“whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the

evidence established guilt of the essential elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt”. United States v. Jones,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1998). Viewing the

evidence, the inferences therefrom, and credibility determinations

“in the light most favorable to the ... verdict”, see id., there

was sufficient evidence that Oveal knew of the firearm’s presence

in his vehicle and that he had access to the firearm. See United

States v. Ybarra,

(5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,

(1996); see also

(g)(1).

Oveal’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence of the

interstate-commerce element of his offense and to the

constitutionality of

(g) are without merit. See

United States v. Cavazos,

(5th Cir.), cert.

denied,

(2002); United States v. Daugherty,

, 518 & n.12 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,

(2002).

The refusal to provide a requested jury instruction is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., United States v.

2 Pankhurst,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1997). Oveal’s requested jury instruction (concerning effect

of firearm on interstate commerce) was an incorrect statement of

law. See United States v. De Leon,

(5th Cir.),

cert. denied,

(1999). The district court did not

abuse its discretion in refusing to give it; nor was there error

with the instruction given to the jury. Id.; Cavazos,

.

There may have been error in the admission of the wife's

testimony about her 1990 conviction. See FED. R. EVID. 609; United

States v. Lopez,

(5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,

Ramirez v. United States,

(1993). Oveal was not

prejudiced by the testimony, however; the error was harmless. See

United States v. Williams,

(5th Cir. 1992)

(“Unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly

admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not

required.”) (internal quotations omitted); United States v.

McDonald,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1990).

AFFIRMED

3