United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21077
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY HUNT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CR-58-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gregory Hunt appeals his 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). Relying on the Supreme
Court’s decisions in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000);
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); and United States
v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Hunt argues that 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it does not
require a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce, as 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-21077
-2-
required for a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to
regulate interstate commerce. In the alternative, Hunt argues
that if 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is interpreted as implicitly
requiring a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce, his
indictment and the evidence supporting his conviction are
insufficient. Hunt further contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
can no longer constitutionally be construed to cover the
intrastate possession of a handgun merely due to the fact that it
traveled across state lines at some point in the past. He argues
that such a construction would be applicable to 90% of all
firearms in this country.
Hunt raises his arguments solely to preserve them for
possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments
are foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United
States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
123 S. Ct. 253 (2002); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,
518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002); United
States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); United
States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir. 1996); United States
v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, 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.