United States v. Bowden

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1692
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this court issued on October 28, 1996 is amended
as follows:
On page 2, line 6, correct the spelling of "inerrelated" to
"interrelated."
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1692
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Brett D. Baber and Rudman & Winchell on brief for appellant.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, James L. McCarthy and
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
appellee.
October 28, 1996
Per Curiam. David L. Bowden appeals from his
conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The
government has moved for summary affirmance pursuant to Loc.
R. 27.1. We grant the government's motion for the following
reasons.
Bowden makes three interrelated arguments. First
he contends that 922(g) is unconstitutional under the
reasoning of United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995).
"This issue is no longer open in this circuit." United
States v. Joost, 92 F.3d 7, 14 (1st Cir. 1996). Bowden's
remaining arguments are that 922(g) requires proof that
possession of the firearm had a "substantial effect" upon
interstate commerce, and that the jury instructions were
flawed for not including that requirement. In United States
v. Blais, No. 95-1093, slip op. at 8 (1st Cir. August 28,
1996), we rejected precisely the arguments that Bowden makes
here "about Lopez's alteration of the Scarborough standard of
minimal nexus."
Bowden's conviction is summarily affirmed. See Loc.
R. 27.1.
-2-