United States v. Sanders

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20479
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL JAMES SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-796-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul James Sanders appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1). Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in
Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000); United States v.
Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); and United States v. Lopez, 514
U.S. 549 (1995), Sanders argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) can no
longer constitutionally be construed to cover the intrastate
possession of a firearm merely due to the fact that it traveled

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-20479
-2-
across state lines at some point in the past. Accordingly,
Sanders argues that the evidence, which stipulated that the
firearm he possessed in Texas was manufactured in California, was
insufficient to establish the interstate commerce element of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) and thus insufficient to support his conviction.
Sanders raises his argument solely to preserve it for
possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his argument
is foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United
States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
537 U.S. 910 (2002); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,
518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002); United
States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); United
States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir. 1996); United States
v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996).
Because the argument is foreclosed, the Government has moved
for a summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment. The
motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

-- 2 of 2 --