IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21309
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER EARNEST WHITE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-24-ALL
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher Earnest White appeals from his conviction of
being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). White first contends that the district
court violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 by failing to question him
correctly about whether he previously had been convicted of a
drug offense in state court. According to White, the district
court did not read the indictment to him; there was no plea
agreement in his case; and the recitation of the factual basis
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21309
-2-
for the plea did not suffice to ascertain that White understood
the jurisdictionally relevant fact of the prior conviction.
The record of the rearraignment hearing indicated that White
was properly admonished regarding the fact of his prior
conviction. White has failed to show error, plain or otherwise,
regarding whether the district court properly discussed the prior
conviction with him. See United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043,
1046 (2002)(plain error review).
White next contends that the district court erred by denying
his motion to dismiss the indictment based on lack of proof of an
interstate commerce nexus and the alleged unconstitutionality of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. He also argues that the
evidence was insufficient regarding the interstate commerce
element.
First, the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is not
open to question regarding the jurisdictional interstate commerce
element. United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002). Second, White
waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by
pleading guilty. Smith v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 677, 682 (5th Cir.
1983). To the extent that White’s sufficiency challenge may be
construed as a challenge to the factual basis for his plea, the
factual basis for White’s plea indicated that the firearm at
issue in his case was manufactured in California and that it was
taken from White’s car in Houston. White agreed with the factual
No. 01-21309
-3-
basis. There was a sufficient factual basis to support the
interstate commerce element. See Daugherty, 264 F.3d at 514, 518
(firearm manufactured in Egypt and imported through Tennessee).
AFFIRMED.