United States v. Baltazar-Lopez

*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-21130
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL BALTAZAR-LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-503-1
_________________________________________
August 16, 2001
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Baltazar-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal
alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and
924(a)(2). He contends that the factual basis to which he pleaded is insufficient to
support the interstate commerce element of a § 922(g) offense and that we should

-- 1 of 2 --

1529 U.S. 848 (2000).
2529 U.S. 598 (2000).
3United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 863 (1999); see
also, United States v. Jackson, 220 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1640
(2001).
418 U.S.C. § 922(g).
2
reconsider our jurisprudence respecting the constitutionality of § 922(g) in light of
Jones v. United States1 and United States v. Morrison.2
We have declined to entertain the advanced constitutional challenge to 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).3 For purposes of this appeal, we view 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) as
indistinguishable from 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for both rely on the same jurisdictional
nexus between the firearm and interstate commerce.4 The cases cited by Baltazar
do not affect our consistent determination respecting the constitutionality of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --