United States v. Perez-Hernandez

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40092
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FELIPE PEREZ-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(B-00-CR-338-1)
--------------------
November 9, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Felipe Perez-Hernandez (“Perez”) chal-
lenges his conviction for being an illegal alien in possession of
a weapon affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5)(A). He argues that the indictment was defective and
that the evidence was not sufficient to support the interstate-
commerce element of the offense.
Perez’s challenge to the indictment is without merit. The
language of his indictment tracks the language of 18 U.S.C. §

-- 1 of 2 --

2
922(g)(5)(A) and alleges each of the elements of the offense. See
United States v. Arlen, 947 F.2d 139, 145 (5th Cir. 1991).
His insufficiency-of-the-evidence argument is equally
unavailing. In essence, Perez’s argument is that we should
reconsider our jurisprudence regarding the constitutionality of §
922(g) in light of Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). We have repeatedly
stated, however, that the constitutionality of § 922(g) “is not
open to question.” United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499
(5th Cir. 1999). The Jones and Morrison cases cited by Perez are
distinguishable and do not affect our long-standing and consistent
position on § 922(g)’s constitutionality.
The judgment of the district court is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --