F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 27 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 02-6160
v. D.C. No. CR-01-108-T
(W.D. Oklahoma)
MICHAEL RAY WARREN,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Michael Ray Warren appeals from his conviction for possession of a
firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). For the following
reasons, we affirm Mr. Warren’s conviction and sentence.
Prior to entering a plea of guilty, Mr. Warren filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction, asserting that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession
statute, is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s rulings in Jones v. United
States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The district court denied Mr.
Warren’s motion. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Mr. Warren entered a
conditional plea of guilty, and reserved the right to appeal the district court’s
dismissal of this motion. Mr. Warren was sentenced to 120 months’
imprisonment and to three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Mr. Warren reasserts that his conviction should be reversed
because § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause of
the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. Mr. Warren acknowledges
that this argument is “foreclosed” by our decision in United States v. Dorris, 236
F.3d 582, 586 (10th Cir. 2000) (“The decisions in Morrison and Jones give no
reason beyond what was already present in Lopez to find § 922(g)(1) beyond
Congress’ Commerce Power.”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 986 (2001), which rejected
-2-
the same argument. Rec. vol. IV, doc. 17, at 6 (Aplt’s Br.). His counsel informs
us that he has included the argument to preserve it for further review by the
United States Supreme Court. Be that as it may, Dorris nonetheless compels us to
AFFIRM Mr. Warren’s conviction and sentence in the instant case.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-3-