United States v. Kollock , 10 F. App'x 98 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-4876
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CORNELIUS KOLLOCK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CR-00-158)
    Submitted:   April 6, 2001                    Decided:   May 11, 2001
    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert
    A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    A jury found Cornelius Kollock guilty of one count of possess-
    ing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922
    (g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000).     On appeal,
    Kollock contends that: (1) Section 922(g) is unconstitutional under
    the Commerce Clause, and (2) the district court erred by applying
    a 4-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with
    a felony.     Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    We find that Kollock’s challenge to § 922(g) is without merit.
    See United States v. Gallimore,        F.3d    , 
    2001 WL 313887
    , *3
    (4th Cir. Apr. 2, 2001) (No. 00-4416).
    We have reviewed the record and find that the 4-level en-
    hancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) is not clearly erroneous.    See
    United States v. Nale, 
    101 F.3d 1000
    , 1003-04 (4th Cir. 1996);
    United States v. Daughtrey, 
    874 F.2d 213
    , 217 (4th Cir. 1989).
    Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.         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 the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4876

Citation Numbers: 10 F. App'x 98

Judges: Wilkins, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 5/11/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024