United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 01-2522
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the Western
                                        * District of Missouri.
William A. Shaffer,                     *
                                        *        [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                          Submitted: November 6, 2001

                               Filed: November 13, 2001
                                    ___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       William A. Shaffer appeals his conviction upon his guilty plea to being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), for
which the district court1 sentenced him to 96 months imprisonment and 3 years
supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders
v. California, 

(1967), arguing (1) the Second Amendment was violated;
(2) there was a violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

(2000), and

      1
       The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
Castillo v. United States, 

(2000), “because whether the shotgun fit the
definition of a weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845 was an element of the offense
which should have been charged in the indictment, and was not merely a sentencing
factor”; (3) Mr. Shaffer was coerced into signing his post-arrest statement; (4) the
district court lacked jurisdiction under Article III; and (5) the prosecution was, among
other things, dishonest and orchestrated to incite fear.

       We reject these arguments seriatim. First, “it is now well-settled that Congress
did not violate the Second Amendment in enacting [§ 922(g)(1)].” United States v.
Waller, 

, 857 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Second, Mr. Shaffer’s
section 5845 argument is misplaced, given that he did not receive an enhanced
sentence for possessing a sawed-off shotgun as opposed to a firearm in general. See
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) (10-year mandatory minimum prison term if firearm
possessed is “short-barreled shotgun”). Third, Mr. Shaffer waived his argument
concerning the voluntariness of his signed statement. See United States v. Vong,

, 654 (8th Cir. 1999) (by pleading guilty defendant waived all
non-jurisdictional defenses). Fourth, the district court had jurisdiction because
section 922 is a law of the United States enacted by Congress, see U.S. Const. art. I,
§ 1, and federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising from federal laws, see U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Finally, Mr. Shaffer’s improper-prosecution argument is
wholly conclusory and waived by his guilty plea. See 

.

      Upon further review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.




                                          -2-
A true copy.

      Attest:

                CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                               -3-