Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4153 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELVIN OWENS JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-01-50) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Melton, Chesapeake, Virginia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4153 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELVIN OWENS JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-01-50) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Melton, Chesapeake, Virginia,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4153
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELVIN OWENS JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-01-50)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Melton, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, James Ashford Metcalf, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Jackson, who was sentenced to fifty-two months’
imprisonment following his conditional guilty plea to being a felon
in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West
2000), challenges only the district court’s denial of his motion to
dismiss his indictment for lack of jurisdiction. In that motion,
Jackson argued the interstate commerce requirement of § 922(g)
could not be satisfied by possessing a firearm that had traveled in
interstate commerce. However, because this claim is meritless, see
United States v. Nathan,
202 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2000), we find
the district court properly denied Jackson’s motion. Accordingly,
we affirm Jackson’s conviction and sentence and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2