United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 10, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40708
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID WAYNE GUILLORY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CR-66-1
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
David Wayne Guillory appeals his conviction and sentence for
being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g). He argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient
to support his conviction in that the Government failed to prove
that he possessed the shotgun at issue. See United States v.
Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 348-49 (5th Cir. 1993). A review of the
trial transcript reveals that Special Agent Chris Reed of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40708
-2-
Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Firearms (ATF) testified that
Guillory admitted to him that he had pawned the shotgun. The
testimony of Torrance Ray Harris, the pawn shop employee who
handled the transaction, testified that he recognized Guillory as
the man who had pawned the shotgun. The Government also
introduced into evidence the shotgun pawn ticket bearing
Guillory’s signature. In light of this evidence, a rational
trier of fact could have found that the Government proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that Guillory possessed the shotgun at issue.
See United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir. 1999).
Guillory argues that the district court erred by denying his
motion to dismiss the indictment based on the unconstitutionality
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He concedes that “the constitutionality
of § 922(g) is not open to question” in this circuit. United
States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). He
raises the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court
review.
Guillory also argues that his sentence was improperly
enhanced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the indictment did not
contain any information regarding his prior convictions. He
concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent,
see United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th Cir. 2002),
and he is raising the issue solely to preserve it for possible
further review.
AFFIRMED.