United States of America v. Alvin Eugene Goney, a/k/a Shoddy Harris a/k/a David Harris a/k/a Albert Thomas,…

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-3132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ALVIN EUGENE GONEY,
a/k/a Shoddy Harris
a/k/a David Harris
a/k/a Albert Thomas,
Alvin Eugene Goney,
Appellant
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00197 )
District Judge: Honorable Alan N. Bloch
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 11, 2004
Before: NYGAARD, McKEE and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Filed May 18, 2004
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
After a jury convicted defendant of possession of a firearm by a convicted

-- 1 of 3 --

2
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), he was sentenced to 210 months
imprisonment. He raises three issues in this appeal.
I.
Defendant contends that possession of a firearm that previously traveled in
interstate commerce following its fabrication and distribution has no substantial relation
to or affect on interstate commerce. Accordingly, he argues that Congress has no
authority to criminalize his conduct.
Defendant concedes that this Court has previously held that the statute was
constitutional, but he wishes to preserve the point in the event that the Supreme Court
comes to a contrary conclusion. Because we are bound by our previous holdings in
United States v. Coward, 296 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 2002) and United States v.
Singletary, 268 F.3d 196, 200, 204-05 (3d Cir. 2001), we reject the defendant’s argument
and once again hold that the statute is constitutional.
II.
Additionally, defendant complains that the District Court erred in refusing
to admit the testimony of a fingerprint expert who would have testified that defendant
made clear prints on various surfaces. Based on that fact, the expert would have opined
that similar results on the gun itself were to be expected. However, he had not tested the
defendant’s ability to make prints on the gun itself. In view of that fact, the court stated
that the testimony would be irrelevant and it was excluded. We find no error or abuse of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
discretion in that ruling.
III.
Finally, the defendant challenges the District Court’s refusal to grant a
downward departure because of his age and its use of his prior convictions in calculating
both criminal history and offense level. The defendant’s theory is that the use of prior
convictions in both categories misrepresented his criminal history.
We find no error in the sentencing judge’s conclusion that defendant was
properly classified as an armed career criminal subject to an enhanced sentence. Nor do
we find merit in the defendant’s claim that he should have been granted a downward
departure based on his 45 years of age. In any event, the judge stated that even if he had
discretion to depart downward in this case, he would not do so.
Accordingly, we will affirm the Judgment of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --