IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50235
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN BEAUFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-01-CR-136-ALL
January 3, 2003
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
John Beauford appeals his convictions for possessing with the
intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(C) (count one), possessing with the intent to distribute
more than five grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) (count two), and possessing stolen
firearms that had been shipped in interstate commerce in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (count three). He was sentenced to 151
months’ confinement on counts one and two and 120 months’
1
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
confinement on count three, all the confinement terms being
concurrent; three year terms of supervised release were imposed on
counts one and three and a five year term of supervised release was
imposed on count two, all the terms being concurrent.
Beauford contends that the evidence was insufficient to
establish that he intended to distribute the cocaine and cocaine
base and that the firearms were stolen. Viewing the evidence and
all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most
favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence was sufficient to
support Beauford’s convictions. See United States v. Gourley, 168
F.3d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir. 1999).
Beauford further asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) is
unconstitutional as violative of the Commerce Clause because it
extends federal control to firearm possession that does not
substantially affect interstate commerce. However, as Beauford
concedes, this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See
United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 319-22 (5th Cir. 1999). The
judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2