United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 24, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-20714
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEBRA ANDERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-680-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Debra Anderson (“Anderson”) appeals her conviction for being
a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). Anderson argues that the district
court erred in accepting her guilty plea because the factual
basis was insufficient to establish the interstate commerce
element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Anderson also contends that
the enhancement provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20714
-2-
unconstitutional based on the holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Anderson acknowledges that her arguments are foreclosed by
circuit precedent. Nevertheless, Anderson seeks to preserve the
issues for Supreme Court review. Because the factual basis
indicated that the firearm Anderson possessed was not
manufactured in Texas, Anderson’s conviction was supported by the
evidence. See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir.
1996). Anderson’s contention that the enhancement provision in
18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is unconstitutional lacks merit because
Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523
U.S. 24 (1998). See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States
v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently,
Anderson’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
United States v. Anderson
Combined Opinion