US v. Sir Battle

Filing 920090401

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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