United States v. Reed, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-51313
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BOBBY JOE REED, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-03-CR-166-ALL-SS
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobby Joe Reed, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction for
possessing a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j)
and 924(a)(2). Reed argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), which
prohibits the possession of a stolen firearm, is unconstitutional
in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Reed concedes that this issue is
foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-51313
-2-
(5th Cir. 1999), and he raises the issue only to preserve it for
possible Supreme Court review.
A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s
decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding
decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States
Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466
(5th Cir. 1999). No such decision overruling Luna exists.
Accordingly, Reed’s argument is indeed foreclosed. The judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

-- 2 of 2 --