IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10231
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
HUBERT EARL LAWSON
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CR-295-1-G
--------------------
February 8, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hubert Earl Lawson appeals his convictions under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He contends that the Government did not demonstrate
that the firearms had the requisite effect on interstate
commerce. Lawson also contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional. Lawson concedes that his arguments are
foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he raises the arguments to
preserve them for Supreme Court review. These issues are
foreclosed. See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th
Cir. 1996).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 00-10231
-2-
Lawson next challenges the district court’s order that his
sentences run consecutively. He asserts that the district court
did not comply with 28 U.S.C. § 3584(b), did not consider the
factors listed in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), and did not provide
reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. We rejected similar
arguments in United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437,
439-40 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 2001 WL 13127 (2001). The
record supports the inference that the district court considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Lawson has not shown plain
error. See id.
Finally, Lawson contends that his 1984 state convictions
were related or consolidated cases. Lawson’s 1984 Texas
convictions are not factually similar, and each conviction had a
separate docket number. The convictions were not for related
offenses, and the cases were not consolidated. See United States
v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v.
Metcalf, 898 F.2d 43, 46 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.