Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04479/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04479-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Melito Arellano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4479

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LUIS MELITO ARELLANO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00316-D-1)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noah A. Clements, THE CLEMENTS FIRM, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4479 Doc: 45 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Luis Arellano was convicted of carjacking, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2012), and sentenced to 168 

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Arellano contends that the 

district court plainly erred in exercising jurisdiction over 

him, where the federal carjacking statute exceeds Congress’s 

legislative authority under the Commerce Clause. We affirm.

Arellano’s challenge to the federal carjacking statute 

was not raised in the district court; we thus review the court’s 

decision for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 

732 (1993). Arellano must show that an error (1) occurred, 

(2) was plain, (3) affected his substantial rights, and 

(4) “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not plainly err. We have twice considered 

and rejected similar Commerce Clause challenges to the federal 

carjacking statute. See United States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475, 

489-90 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cobb, 144 F.3d 319, 

321-22 (4th Cir. 1998).

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-4479 Doc: 45 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-4479 Doc: 45 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3