Filed: Aug. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40060 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HUGO ALONZO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CR-316-1 - August 21, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Hugo Alonzo appeals his conviction following a guilty plea to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possession of a firearm after havi
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40060 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HUGO ALONZO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CR-316-1 - August 21, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Hugo Alonzo appeals his conviction following a guilty plea to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possession of a firearm after havin..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40060
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HUGO ALONZO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-00-CR-316-1
--------------------
August 21, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hugo Alonzo appeals his conviction following a guilty plea
to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possession of a firearm after having
been previously convicted of a felony. He argues that the
factual basis of his guilty plea was insufficient to support his
conviction because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) operates
unconstitutionally where the only interstate commerce nexus is
the mere fact that the firearm possessed had a past connection to
interstate travel.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40060
-2-
We hold that United States v. Rawls,
85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir.
1996) is controlling, and, therefore, the district court
committed no error.
AFFIRMED.