United States v. Wilson ( 2002 )

Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-22-2002
USA v. Wilson
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 0-3880
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Wilson" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 195.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/195
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-3880
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GRANT WILSON,
Appellant
_______________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 99-cr-00567
(Honorable Herbert J. Hutton)
___________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 7, 2002
Before: SCIRICA and COWEN, Circuit Judges, and
RESTANI, Judge, United States Court of International Trade*
(Filed: March 22, 2002)
*The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of
International Trade,
sitting by designation.
__________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________________
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered under a guilty plea to one
count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(1). We
will affirm.
Following his sentencing, defendant filed a notice of appeal. His
court-appointed
attorney subsequently filed an Anders brief, stating there were no non-
frivolous issues
for appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Thereafter,
however, defense
counsel filed an amended brief stating there was a non-frivolous issue for
appeal;
namely, the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Defendant argues
this section is
outside of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce and all other
sources of
congressional authority.
Subsequent to the filing of defendant's supplemental brief, this
court decided
United States v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2001), in which we
upheld the
constitutionality of 922(g)(1) against the same argument as that
advanced by defendant.
Therefore, defendant's constitutional challenge fails.
None of the issues proffered by counsel for the defendant in his
Anders brief are
meritorious. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and
sentence.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/Anthony J. Scirica
Circuit Judge