IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20729
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-26-ALL
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joel Ramirez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for
possession of a firearm subsequent to a felony conviction. He
contends that the factual basis was insufficient to support the
interstate commerce element of an 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) offense
and that this court should reconsider its jurisprudence regarding
the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in light of Jones
v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v.
Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Ramirez concedes that his
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20729
-2-
arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent but seeks to
preserve the issue for 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 firearm
possessed by Ramirez previously traveled in interstate commerce.
United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996).
Ramirez’s reliance on Morrison and Jones is misplaced. In United
States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert.
denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002), this court recently determined
that Morrison and Jones were distinguishable from an 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) case in which the defendant, like Ramirez, had
stipulated to facts showing that his firearm had traveled in
interstate commerce, emphasizing that “the constitutionality of
§ 922(g) is not open to question.” Id. (quotation and citation
omitted).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.