United States v. Griffin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4803
WILLIAM LUMAS GRIFFIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4805
GEORGE DAVID LANGLEY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-93, CR-96-95)
Submitted: August 19, 1997
Decided: January 22, 1998
Before HALL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina; Nils E. Gerber, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appel-
lants. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
William L. Griffin and George D. Langley, Jr., appeal their convic-
tions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1997). In this consolidated
appeal, they challenge the constitutionality of§ 922(g), the district
court's denial of a requested jury instruction, and the denial of a
motion for acquittal. We affirm.
Griffin and Langley were apprehended after breaking and entering
into a restaurant in Burlington, North Carolina. Each wore a shoulder
holster containing a pistol. Each had previously been convicted of a
crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. The jury
found both guilty. Griffin was sentenced to 211 months imprisonment
followed by five years supervised release. Langley was sentenced to
181 months imprisonment followed by five years supervised release.
Relying on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Appel-
lants challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 922(g), asserting
that the enactment of the statute exceeded Congress' Commerce
Clause authority. Having recently rejected the identical argument in
United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808, 811 (4th Cir. 1996), we find
Appellants' argument to be without merit.
Next, Appellants contend that the district court erred in refusing to
instruct the jury that, following the Supreme Court's decision in
Lopez, the government is required to prove that the defendants' pos-
2
session of the firearms had a direct impact on interstate commerce,
greater than the fact that the firearms originated in a state other than
North Carolina. We disagree. In Wells, we specifically held that the
existence of the statute's jurisdictional element-- requiring the gov-
ernment to prove that the firearm was "shipped or transported in inter-
state or foreign commerce" -- "satisfies the minimal nexus required
for the Commerce Clause." Wells, 98 F.3d at 811 (citing Scarborough
v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977) (finding predecessor to
§ 922(g) within the bounds of the Commerce Clause)); see also
United States v. Smith, 101 F.3d 202, 215 (1st Cir. 1996) (holding
proof of minimal nexus to interstate commerce still sufficient for
§ 922(g) conviction after Lopez), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1345 (1997);
United States v. Lewis, 100 F.3d 49, 50-53 (7th Cir. 1996) (same).
Consequently, we hold that an adequate interstate nexus exists if the
firearm was shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
See also United States v. Verna, 113 F.3d 499, 502 (4th Cir. 1997)
(holding that plaintiff's § 922(g) conviction must be sustained if there
was sufficient evidence that the firearm had been"shipped or trans-
ported in interstate . . . commerce"). Accordingly, the district court
did not err in refusing Appellants' requested jury instruction.
Finally, Appellants argue that the district court should have granted
their motions for acquittal because the Government did not prove ade-
quate interstate nexus. The Government offered the testimony of a
firearms expert that each weapon was manufactured in Connecticut.
This evidence satisfies that element of the offense.
We affirm the convictions of Griffin and Langley. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3