IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20183
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
GLEN EARL GREATHOUSE
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-657-ALL
--------------------
September 18, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glen Earl Greathouse (“Greathouse”) appeals his conviction
for being a felon in possession of a firearm possessed in and
affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He contends that the evidence
presented at his trial was insufficient to support the interstate
commerce element of a § 922(g)(1) offense and that this court
should reconsider its jurisprudence regarding the
constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in light of Jones v. United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20183
-2-
States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v. Morrison, 529
U.S. 598 (2000). Greathouse also argues that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that he possessed the firearm.
“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. 1999). The
cases cited by Greathouse are distinguishable and do not affect
this determination.
The standard of review of the sufficiency of evidence to
support a conviction is whether any reasonable trier of fact
could have found that the evidence established the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States
v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). Possession
of a firearm may be actual or constructive and may be proven by
circumstantial evidence. United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d 494,
496 (5th Cir. 1999). The evidence presented at Greathouse’s
trial was sufficient to establish that he possessed a firearm.
Consequently, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.