Filed: Dec. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20302 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANDRE DENNILE THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-712-1 - December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Andre Dennile Thomas appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20302 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANDRE DENNILE THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-712-1 - December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Andre Dennile Thomas appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S...
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20302
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE DENNILE THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-712-1
--------------------
December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andre Dennile Thomas appeals his conviction for being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Thomas contends that the interstate commerce
element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face
and as applied to him.
Thomas’s challenge to the indictment as being defective for
alleging merely that the firearm he possessed was possessed in
and affected interstate commerce fails because the language of
his indictment tracks the language of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-20302
-2-
alleges each of the elements of the offense. See United States
v. Arlen,
947 F.2d 139, 145 (5th Cir. 1991).
Thomas challenges this court’s jurisprudence regarding the
constitutionality of § 922(g). However, as this court recently
reaffirmed, “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to
question.” See United States v. Daugherty,
264 F.3d 513, 518
(5th Cir. 2001)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.