United States v. Solomon ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21147
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARLVIN WALTER SOLOMON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-293-1
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marlvin Walter Solomon (“Solomon”) appeals his conviction
for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). Solomon makes the following
arguments: (1) that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional,
(2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he
possessed a firearm in and affecting interstate commerce, and
(3) the indictment was defective because it failed to allege that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21147
-2-
his possession of the firearm had a “substantial effect” on
interstate commerce.
Solomon acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by
circuit precedent. Nevertheless, Solomon seeks to preserve the
issues for Supreme Court review. This court has repeatedly
emphasized that the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is not
open to question. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,
518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1150 (2002). Because
the factual basis indicated that the firearm Solomon possessed
was not manufactured in Texas, Solomon’s conviction was supported
by the evidence. See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242
(5th Cir. 1996). Finally, the indictment in Solomon’s case was
not defective for failing to allege that his possession of the
firearm had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. See
United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.