United States of America v. Frederick B. Williams

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-2378
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FREDERICK B. WILLIAMS, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Crim. No. 99-cr-00418)
District Judge: Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 7, 2002
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, ALITO and RENDELL,
Circuit Judges.
(Filed March 15, 2002 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
BECKER, Chief Judge.
Frederick B. Williams appeals from his conviction, following a negotiated plea
agreement, to one count of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon in violation of
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The gravamen of his appeal is that the statute is unconstitutional
because the conduct it proscribes the intrastate possession of a firearm does not have
a substantial effect upon interstate commerce and thus does not constitute a valid
exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. While acknowledging that we
upheld the constitutionality of 922(g)(1) in United States v. Gateward, 84 F.3d 670 (3d
Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 907 (1996), Williams argues that at the time of Gateward, it
was still unclear in this Circuit whether Lopez was a "limited holding," or if it was
instead a "watershed" opinion signaling a fundamental shift in the Supreme Court’s
Commerce Clause jurisprudence. He further argues that the Supreme Court’s two recent
opinions in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and Jones v. United States,
529 U.S. 848 (2000), make clear that Lopez was no aberration and that Congress’
Commerce Clause power is significantly more limited than had previously been thought,
and in light of these two new decisions, "it becomes even more clear that 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as it exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce
Clause."
Unfortunately for Mr. Williams this issue has now been conclusively resolved by
our opinion in United States v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2001). In Singletary,
we considered the precise constitutional challenge to that statute raised by Williams here,
and concluded that Congress did not exceed its power to regulate interstate commerce
when it enacted 922(g)(1). Singletary thus reaffirmed our prior decision in United
States v. Gateward, 84 F.3d 670 (3d Cir. 1996), and held that post-Gateward decisions
of the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and Jones v.
United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), did not overrule Gateward sub silentio. The
judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
___________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Edward R. Becker
Chief Judge MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 13, 2002
TO: Marcy Waldron
FROM: Judge Becker
RE: United States v. Frederick Williams, No. 01-2378
Submitted: March 7, 2002
Dear Marcy:
Please file the enclosed Not Precedential Opinion in the above case. The signed
original will be delivered.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Becker
ERB:afr
cc: Judge Alito
Judge Rendel

-- 2 of 2 --