Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20490/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felix Alfonso Guerra
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20490

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIX ALFONSO GUERRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-593-1

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felix Alfonso Guerra appeals from his guilty-plea conviction

for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Guerra argues

that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction because the mere movement of a firearm from one state

to another does not constitute a “substantial” effect on

interstate commerce; and (2) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is

unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it does not

require a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce. Guerra

 Case: 03-20490 Document: 0051518419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-20490

-2-

raises these arguments solely to preserve them for possible

Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments are

foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United

States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2001).

Guerra also contends that a conflict exists between the

district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written

judgment because the written judgment contains a condition of

supervised release prohibiting the possession of a dangerous

weapon but, at the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention

this prohibition. For the reasons set forth in United States v.

Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935-38 (5th Cir. 2003), we conclude

that the district court’s omission of the dangerous-weapon

prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not

create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-20490 Document: 0051518419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004