United States v. Kurt Hinton , 451 F. App'x 253 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4431
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KURT JOSEPH HINTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00315-TDS-1)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Terri-Lei O’Malley, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kurt Joseph Hinton was convicted by a jury of one
count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (“Count One”), one
count of possession of a firearm he knew or had reason to
believe was stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2006)
(“Count Two”), and one count of possession of an unregistered
firearm with a barrel length of less than eighteen inches and an
overall length of less than twenty-six inches, in violation of
26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2006) (“Count Three”). The district court
sentenced Hinton to sixty-two months in prison for each count,
to run concurrently. Hinton timely appealed his convictions in
Counts One and Two, arguing that the district court violated his
constitutional rights by instructing the jury that Hinton’s
possession was “in or affecting commerce” if the jury found that
the firearm had travelled “at some time from one state to
another, or from a foreign country to the United States.”
Hinton contends that the interstate commerce element, as applied
to him, is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution. We affirm.
We review Hinton’s preserved challenge to the
constitutionality of the statute de novo. United States v.
Buculei, 262 F.3d 322, 327 (4th Cir. 2001). Hinton admits that
the precedent of this Circuit forecloses his current argument.
2
See United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 137-38 (4th Cir.
2001) (rejecting argument made in reliance on Jones v. United
States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v. Morrison, 529
U.S. 598 (2000) that transport across state lines was
insufficient to establish possession “in or affecting”
interstate commerce); United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808, 810-
11 (4th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument made in reliance
on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)). Moreover,
Hinton correctly recognizes that a three-judge panel of this
court cannot overrule another three-judge panel where, as here,
no intervening Supreme Court decision casts doubt on existing
precedent. United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th
Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3