US v. Sir Battle

Filing 920090401

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4715 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SIR MARQUIS BATTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00236-MR-1) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: April 1, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Raquel K. Wilson, Matthew R. Segal, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Cortney Escaravage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sir Marquis Battle appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006). Battle argues 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 and (1995) Jones (invalidating v. United under 18 U.S.C. 529 arson 922(q)(1)(A) 848 (2000) because Finding we (1994)), States, federal U.S. (reversing conviction statute private residence was not used in interstate commerce). that Battle's claim is foreclosed by Circuit precedent, affirm his conviction. This court has previously considered and rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of 922(g)(1) based upon Lopez, in United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808, 810-11 (4th Cir. 1996). We have further held that Jones does not affect our United 2001). decisions regarding the constitutionality of 922(g). States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 138 (4th Cir. Accordingly, any argument that 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional must fail. (4th Cir. See also United States v. Nathan, 202 F.3d 230, 234 2000) (upholding 922(g)(1)); United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718, 723 (4th Cir. 1999) (upholding 922(g)(8) and stating that "jurisdictional element applies to all nine subsections included in Section 922(g)"). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?