United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FILED
April 20, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-20461 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAULA JEAN FIELDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-458-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paula Jean Fields appeals following her guilty-plea
convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count
One) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count Two),
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2).
Fields argues that her convictions on the above counts are
multiplicitous and that they violate the constitutional guarantee
against double jeopardy. She contends that her conviction for
Count Two should be vacated and the case remanded to the district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-20461
-2-
court with instructions to dismiss that count. The Government
concedes the error and agrees that the conviction on Count Two
should be vacated.
Simultaneous convictions and sentences for the same criminal
act involving possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition
violate double jeopardy. See United States v. Berry, 977 F.2d 915,
919 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we vacate Fields’s conviction on
Count Two and remand to the district court with instructions to
dismiss that count. See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-
65 (1985). Fields’s conviction on Count One is affirmed.
Fields argues that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional
because it does not require a substantial affect on interstate
commerce. She also contends that the mere fact that a firearm or
ammunition traveled across state lines in the past is legally
insufficient to satisfy § 922(g)(1)’s interstate commerce
requirement. Fields acknowledges that these arguments are
foreclosed by circuit precedent, but she raises them to preserve
them for further review.
This court has repeatedly held that “‘the constitutionality of
§ 922(g) is not open to question.’” United States v. Daugherty,
264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001)(quoting United States v. DeLeon,
170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999)). This court has also held that
evidence that a weapon was manufactured in one state and possessed
in another is sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 922(g).
United States v. Pierson, 139 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 1998); United
No. 06-20461
-3-
States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly,
Fields’s arguments are foreclosed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.