United States v. Cage ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-31271
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    RON CAGE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 00-CR-3-ALL-C
    --------------------
    August 21, 2002
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Ron Cage appeals his conviction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1)
    for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.   He argues that
    
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1) is unconstitutional, that mere intra-state
    possession of a firearm is insufficient to establish that the
    firearm traveled in or affected interstate commerce, and that the
    district court’s refusal to include a requested jury instruction
    on the “in or affecting” commerce element was error.   Cage
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31271
    -2-
    acknowledges that each of these claims is foreclosed by existing
    Fifth Circuit precedent, but he states that he raises the claims
    to preserve them for further review.
    Cage’s claims are indeed foreclosed by circuit precedent.
    See United States v. Daugherty, 
    264 F.3d 513
    , 518 & n.12 (holding
    that “constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question” and
    that evidence that a weapon was manufactured outside of the state
    in which it was possessed is sufficient to support a conviction)
    (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 1113
     (2002); United
    States v. De Leon, 
    170 F.3d 494
    , 499 (5th Cir. 1999) (refusing
    instruction that required proof that ammunition had an “explicit
    connection or substantial effect on” interstate commerce).
    Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-31271

Filed Date: 8/23/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014