United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41077
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL SALINAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-03-CR-282-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Salinas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction
on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Salinas attacks the constitutionality of his conviction under
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), contending that there was no evidence
that the firearm he possessed was in or substantially affected
interstate commerce. He submits that the Supreme Court’s
decisions in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995),
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and Jones v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41077
-2-
United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), require that the firearms
possession have a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce.
Salinas concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by
circuit precedent, but he wishes to preserve them for Supreme
Court review. This court has determined that “neither the
holding in Lopez nor the reasons given therefor constitutionally
invalidate § 922(g)(1).” United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240,
242 (5th Cir. 1996). This court has also determined that
“[n]either Jones nor Morrison affects or undermines the
constitutionality of § 922(g).” United States v. Daugherty,
264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). This court repeatedly has
affirmed § 922(g)(1) convictions on evidence similar to that
presented in the instant case. See id. at 518 & n.12 (concluding
that § 922(g)(1)’s interstate commerce element is satisfied by
the defendant’s possession of a firearm that was manufactured in
a different state or country).
Because the arguments raised on appeal are foreclosed by
this court’s precedent, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.