United States v. Graves ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-20161
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    DONNELL LEE GRAVES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-98-CR-152-1
    - - - - - - - - - -
    November 22, 1999
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Donnell Lee Graves appeals his convictions following a jury
    trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for using
    and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-
    trafficking crime.    Graves argues that 1) the evidence was
    insufficient to prove that the firearm he possessed had traveled
    in interstate commerce; 2) the trial court abused its discretion
    in admitting the firearm into evidence over his hearsay
    objection; and 3) plain error resulted from the prosecutor’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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-20161
    - 2 -
    comments on his prior felony conviction during closing argument.
    Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
    convinces us that no reversible error was committed.    The
    evidence offered by the Government at trial was sufficient to
    prove that a firearm was “in or affected interstate commerce” for
    purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).    See United States v. Gresham,
    
    118 F.3d 258
    , 265 (5th Cir. 1997).    The admission of the revolver
    was harmless error, if it was error at all.    See United States v.
    Dickey, 
    102 F.3d 157
    , 163 (1996).    Finally, assuming that the
    prosecutor’s remarks impliedly referred to Graves’s earlier
    conviction, they did not do so with sufficient force or clarity
    to affect his substantial rights.    See United States v. Gallardo-
    Trapero, 
    185 F.3d 307
    , 323 (5th Cir. 1999).
    AFFIRMED.