IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50099
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES COMPEAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CR-257-ALL
--------------------
August 28, 2001
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Compean appeals his conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm.
He argues that the district court erred by admitting his
previous drug-possession conviction after he had stipulated to
having a prior felony conviction. He asserts that the Government
misled the jury into believing that his prior conviction was for
firearms possession. Even if it is presumed that the jury
believed Compean’s prior conviction was for firearm possession,
any error is harmless given the district court’s curative
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50099
-2-
instruction. See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 413 (5th
Cir. 1998).
Compean challenges the admission of evidence that he
possessed other items in the apartment where the firearms were
found. As this evidence was probative of whether Compean resided
at the apartment, the district court did not err by admitting
this evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Compean also contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional on its face because it fails to require a
“substantial effect” on interstate commerce. He concedes that
his arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent, but seeks
to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. 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 firearms possessed by
Compean previously traveled in interstate commerce. United
States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly,
Compean’s conviction is AFFIRMED.