IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50770
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CR-278-ALL
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Rodriguez appeals his guilty plea conviction for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Rodriguez contends that 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in view of the Supreme Court’s
decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
Rodriguez acknowledges that this court rejected this argument in
United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996), but
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50770
-2-
states that he is raising this argument to preserve it for
further review. He also argues that the Rawls analysis is faulty
in light of the intervening Supreme Court decisions of Jones v.
United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) and United States v. Morrison,
529 U.S. 598 (2000).
In Rawls, this court held that the reasons the Supreme Court
gave in Lopez for holding 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) unconstitutional do
not apply to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Rawls, 85 F.3d at 242. This
court has also recently held that neither Jones nor Morrison
affects or undermines the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g). United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 517 (5th
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002). Because the
arguments raised on appeal are foreclosed by this court’s
precedent, the district court judgment is AFFIRMED.