USA v. Louis Lavaris, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-10311 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JWE , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 10/27/2017 for Appellant Louis Lavaris Jr.; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellant Mr. Louis Lavaris, Jr. [8521009-2] [17-10311]

Case: 17-10311

Document: 00514186242

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/06/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-10311
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
October 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LOUIS LAVARIS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CR-26-1
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Louis Lavaris, Jr., appeals his conviction and the 96-month sentence
imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
He asserts that the Government failed to state a federal offense in his
indictment because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face in that
the element “in or affecting commerce” cannot be satisfied merely by the

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 17-10311

Document: 00514186242

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/06/2017

No. 17-10311
possession of a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce at some point
in time.
As Lavaris concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2001), in which we held that “the
constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question,” id. at 518 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted), and United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d
316, 319-22 (5th Cir. 1999), in which we concluded that § 922(j) was similar to
§ 922(g) and the phrase “shipped or transported in, interstate or foreign
commerce,” provided “the requisite nexus to commerce” to allow Congress to
exercise its powers under the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, Lavaris’s motion
for summary disposition is GRANTED and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

2