Case ID: f-appx_117/html/0325-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Joseph COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50022.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 17, 2004.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Douglas W. Gardner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Jack Browning, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carl Joseph Collins appeals his jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

Collins argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Because Collins properly preserved these objections in the district court, we review the denial of his motion to acquit de novo and consider whether “a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” In the instant case, testimony established that the firearm was manufactured in Switzerland and possessed in Texas. We have “repeatedly held that evidence that a firearm has traveled interstate at some point in the past is sufficient to support a conviction under § 922(g), even if the defendant possessed the firearm entirely intrastate.” Therefore, Collins’s arguments are without merit.

Collins also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied. However, we have rejected such arguments and concluded that the “constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.” This argument is also without merit.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 882 (5th Cir.2000).
     
      
      . United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir.2002).
     
      
      . United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.1999).