United States v. Hunt , 419 F. App'x 949 ( 2011 )

Menu:

                                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-14770                   MARCH 29, 2011
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar                  CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00053-MCR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CORDERRIUS TERRELLE HUNT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(March 29, 2011)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Corderrius Terrelle Hunt appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the statute is
unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,
and violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. United States v. Scott,

263 F.3d 1270

, 1271 (11th Cir. 2001).
Here, as Hunt recognizes, his arguments are clearly foreclosed by our binding
precedent. First, we have binding precedent squarely concerning 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1) that precludes his challenges to the statute’s constitutionality on Commerce
Clause and Tenth Amendment grounds.

Id. at 1273-74

(reaffirming our holding that
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is a facially valid exercise of Congress’ power under the
Commerce Clause; Hiley v. Barrett,

155 F.3d 1276

, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998) (affirming
district court’s conclusion, in National Ass’n of Gov’t Employees, Inc. v. Barrett,

968 F. Supp. 1564

, 1577-78 (N.D.Ga. 1997), that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) did not violate the
Tenth Amendment because it was a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause
power);1 see also New York v. United States,

505 U.S. 144

, 174 (1992) (holding that
a congressional act that is valid under the Commerce Clause does not violate the
Tenth Amendment). In addition, since the Ninth Amendment does not provide an
inherent right to self defense, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) cannot be unconstitutional on
1
Though Barrett addressed the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), this distinction
makes no practical difference in addressing Tenth Amendment concerns.
2
these grounds. See United States v. Wright,

117 F.3d 1265

, 1275 (11th Cir. 1997),
vacated in part on other grounds by

133 F.3d 1412

(11th Cir. 1998). Indeed, the
Tenth Circuit has persuasively rejected the argument that the specific statute at issue
in this case violates the Ninth Amendment. United States v. Baer,

235 F.3d 561