UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4479
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LUIS MELITO ARELLANO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00316-D-1)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Noah A. Clements, THE CLEMENTS FIRM, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Arellano was convicted of carjacking, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2012), and sentenced to 168
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Arellano contends that the
district court plainly erred in exercising jurisdiction over
him, where the federal carjacking statute exceeds Congress’s
legislative authority under the Commerce Clause. We affirm.
Arellano’s challenge to the federal carjacking statute
was not raised in the district court; we thus review the court’s
decision for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732 (1993). Arellano must show that an error (1) occurred,
(2) was plain, (3) affected his substantial rights, and
(4) “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not plainly err. We have twice considered
and rejected similar Commerce Clause challenges to the federal
carjacking statute. See United States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475,
489-90 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cobb, 144 F.3d 319,
321-22 (4th Cir. 1998).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3