United States v. Alexander ( 2003 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 02-10589
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JAMES LEE ALEXANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
______________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division
(5:01-CR-129-1-C)
______________________________________________________________________________
January 28, 2003
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
James Lee Alexander appeals his jury-trial convictions and ensuing sentences for being a
felon in possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting and possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug-trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 2, 924(c)(1)(A). Finding
no error, we AFFIRM.
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
-1-
Alexander argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it fails
to require a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. He also contends that the Government
should be required to prove the knowledge element of the same statute.
This Court has held that “the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is not open to
question.” United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). We have also held that
“knowledge of a legal obligation is not an element of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g).” United States v.
Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 82 (5th Cir. 1988). Because this Court is bound by its own precedent,
Alexander’s arguments relating to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), both facially and as
applied, are foreclosed. See United States v. Taylor, 933 F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). Recent
decisions by the Supreme Court do not alter this Court’s jurisprudence regarding the
constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002).
Alexander also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. Methamphetamine was being
manufactured inside Alexander’s mobile home. Five firearms were located in plain view just inside
an open bedroom closet door and the light was on in that closet. Ammunition was found in the
closet with the firearms and it was strewn all about the residence. Given the accessibility of the
firearms and ammunition and the proximity of those items to the drug-manufacturing operation,
there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the firearms were used in furtherance
of the drug-manufacturing operation. See United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 410-11
(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1102 (2001); see United States v. Pankhurst, 118 F.3d
345, 352 (5th Cir. 1997).
-2-
AFFIRMED.
-3-