DocketNumber： 96-1692
Filed Date： 11/8/1996
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 3/3/2016
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-