Case ID: f-appx_47/html/0830-01.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. Wade Austin HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-30463.
    D.C. No. CR-01-60013-ALA.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 9, 2002 .
    Decided Sept. 19, 2002.
    Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wade Austin Hall appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.

Hall contends that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. This court has repeatedly rejected this contention, as well as Hall’s contention that United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658, (2000) and Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000) impliedly overruled prior authority finding section 922(g) constitutional. See United States v. Rousseau, 257 F.3d 925, 932-33 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 502, 151 L.Ed.2d 413 (2001); United States v. Davis, 242 F.3d 1162, 1162-63 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 178, 151 L.Ed.2d 123 (2001); United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456, 1462 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.