IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21218
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICKY JOE CRISP,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-251-1
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricky Joe Crisp appeals his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He argues
that the factual basis for his guilty plea, which showed his
intrastate possession of a firearm manufactured outside the
state, was insufficient to establish the nexus with interstate
commerce required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends, in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21218
-2-
light of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Jones v. United
States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) and United States v. Morrison, 529
U.S. 598 (2000), that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) can no longer
constitutionally be construed to cover the intrastate possession
of a handgun merely because it traveled across state lines at
some point in the past. He acknowledges that his argument is
foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent but raises the
issue solely to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.
“This court has repeatedly held that evidence that a firearm
has traveled interstate at some point in the past is sufficient
to support a conviction under § 922(g), even if the defendant
possessed the firearm entirely intrastate.” See United States v.
Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712-13 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
(U.S. Oct. 7, 2002, No. 02-5348), 2002 WL 1764873; United States
v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 1150 (2002). This Court has also held that “[n]either
Jones nor Morrison affects or undermines the constitutionality of
§ 922(g).” Daugherty, 264 F.3d at 518. Crisp’s argument is
indeed foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
filing an appellee's brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that an appellee's brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.