MEMORANDUM **
Will Davis appeals his bench trial conviction for one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Davis contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000) and Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000). We have repeatedly rejected this contention, see United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 513-15 (9th Cir.2000), United States v. Davis, 242 F.3d 1162, 1162-63 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 178, 151 L.Ed.2d 123 (2001), and United States v. Rousseau, 257 F.3d 925, 932-33 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 503, 151 L.Ed.2d 413 (2001), and do so here. See United States v. Carrasco, 257 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 658, 151 L.Ed.2d 574 (2001).
The stipulated facts adopted by the district court established that both the firearm and the ammunition were shipped into California. Thus, the evidence adequately supported Davis’ conviction. See Rousseau, 257 F.3d at 933.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.