IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20096
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS LINDSEY SALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-129-ALL
--------------------
August 28, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Douglas Lindsey Sales appeals his guilty plea for being a
felon in possession of ammunition and felon in possession of
explosives. Sales contends that there was an insufficient
factual basis to support his plea and that this court should
reconsider its jurisprudence regarding the constitutionality of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and 18 U.S.C. § 842(I) in light of Jones v.
United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v.
Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Because Sales raises this issue
for the first time on appeal, we review the issue for plain
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20096
-2-
error. United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 530 (5th
Cir. 2000).
“This court has repeatedly emphasized that the
constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question.” See
United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 863 (1999). The cases cited by Sales do not
affect this determination. The “in or affecting commerce”
element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) requires only a minimal nexus
between the firearm and interstate commerce. United States v.
Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 265 (5th Cir. 1997). This element is
satisfied because the ammunition and explosives possessed by
Sales previously traveled in interstate commerce. United States
v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.