United States v. Dennis

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20634
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY JAMES DENNIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-432-1
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffery James Dennis appeals from his bench-trial conviction
for possession of a firearm subsequent to a felony conviction.
He challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
contends that this court should reconsider its jurisprudence
regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in light
of Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States
v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-20634
-2-
Dennis concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by this court’s
precedent but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court
review.
The “in or affecting commerce” element of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) requires only a minimal nexus between the firearm and
interstate commerce. United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 265
(5th Cir. 1997). This element is satisfied because the firearm
possessed by Dennis previously traveled in interstate commerce.
United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996).
Dennis’ reliance on Morrison and Jones is misplaced. In United
States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.), petition for
cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2001), this court recently
determined that Morrison and Jones were distinguishable from an
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) case in which the defendant, like Dennis,
had stipulated to facts showing that his firearm had traveled in
interstate commerce, emphasizing that “the constitutionality of
§ 922(g) is not open to question.” Id. (quotation and citation
omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --