UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YUESEYUAN CRUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-858)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: August 18, 2003
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yueseyuan Cruel made a conditional guilty plea to possessing
fifteen counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a)
(2000). He was sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on
appeal but raising the following issue: whether 18 U.S.C. § 513(a)
is constitutional in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549
(1995). We review de novo whether a federal statute is
constitutional. United States v. Buculei, 262 F.3d 322, 327 (4th
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 963 (2002).
We find that a violation of § 513(a) contains a jurisdictional
element which shows an affect on interstate or foreign commerce,
and thus the statute does not run afoul of Lopez. See United
States v. Kovach, 208 F.3d 1215, 1217 (10th Cir. 2000). Thus, we
agree with counsel that this claim fails on appeal. Despite notice
of his right to do so, Cruel has failed to file a pro se
supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
2
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3