Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0722-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold Ray TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10433.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2007.
    
    Filed May 14, 2007.
    Richard J. Bender, Esq., USSAC—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Michael M. Beckwith Ste., United States Attorney’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew C. Bockman, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendantr-Appellant.
    
      Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arnold Ray Taylor appeals his jury conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Taylor challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). In particular, this court has previously held that the jurisdictional element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) ensures on a case-by-case basis that a defendant’s actions implicate interstate commerce to a constitutionally adequate degree, see United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 563 (9th Cir.1996), and that the statute is constitutional. See United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 514-15 (9th Cir.2000).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.