IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10758
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD LEE VALLEJO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:96-CR-167-A(1))
March 27, 1998
Before JOHNSON, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Lee Vallejo appeals his guilty plea conviction and the
sentence imposed for possession of a firearm in or affecting
interstate commerce by a convicted felon. First, Vallejo contends
that the district court erred in its interpretation and application
of the sentencing guidelines. Second, Vallejo challenges the
constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g).
The district court did not commit reversible error in its
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
application and interpretation of the sentencing guidelines.
Vallejo argues that the district court erroneously enhanced his
sentence for willful obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
Specifically, he asserts that the district court erred in
determining that voluntary intoxication cannot serve as a valid
defense to the willfulness element of obstruction of justice. The
Court need not reach this question because the district court
implicitly concluded that Vallejo’s claim of intoxication was not
credible when it expressly adopted the presentence report. See
United States v. Sherback, 950 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 1992).
After a careful review of the record and the controlling
authorities, the Court concludes that the district court did not
err in imposing the enhancement for obstruction of justice.
Similarly, after a careful review of the record and the controlling
authorities, the Court finds that the district court did not err in
denying Vallejo a reduction point for acceptance of responsibility
under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. See United States v. Tremelling, 43 F.3d
148, 152 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1122 (1995).
Vallejo also argues that the statute of his conviction, §
922(g) is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to his
case. Vallejo’s argument is foreclosed by this Court’s holding in
United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
2