United States v. Reyes ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-50624
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JOHN HENRY REYES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. SA-00-CR-262-OG
    --------------------
    February 20, 2003
    Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    John Henry Reyes appeals his conviction and sentence for
    possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
    U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).   Relying on the Supreme
    Court’s decisions in Jones v. United States, 
    529 U.S. 848
    (2000);
    United States v. Morrison, 
    529 U.S. 598
    (2000); and United States
    v. Lopez, 
    514 U.S. 549
    (1995), Reyes argues that 18 U.S.C.
    § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 02-50624
    -2-
    Commerce Clause power because the regulated activity does not
    substantially affect interstate commerce.
    Reyes raises his argument solely to preserve it for possible
    Supreme Court review.   As he acknowledges, his argument is
    foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent.   See United
    States v. Cavazos, 
    288 F.3d 706
    , 712 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    123 S. Ct. 253
    (2002); United States v. Daugherty, 
    264 F.3d 513
    ,
    518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 1150
    (2002); United
    States v. Gresham, 
    118 F.3d 258
    , 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); United
    States v. Kuban, 
    94 F.3d 971
    , 973 (5th Cir. 1996); United States
    v. Rawls, 
    85 F.3d 240
    , 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996).    Accordingly, the
    judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
    filing an appellee's brief.   In its motion, the Government asks
    that an appellee's brief not be required.   The motion is GRANTED.
    AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.