FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

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

N o. 06- 1383 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00331 -CR- T- 26-MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROBERT LYNN PERRY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

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

(S ep te m be r 6, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Judg es . PE R CU RIA M:To convict a defe nd an t u nder 18 U .S.C. § 922(g) (1), the g overnme nt must prove beyond a 1 rea sonable do ub t , am o ngother thing s, “that the fir ear m was in or af

fec ting inter state commer ce.” United States v. Dele veaux, 205 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 D ef en dant- Appe llant R obe rt

L ynn P er ry appe al s hi s c onvi ct ionand 2 35- m on th sen te nc e fo r be in g afel on in po ss es si on of afir earm , 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Pe rr y f ir st arg ue s th at

the gov er

nm en t f ai le d to sho wa t hi s tr ia l tha t the fi re ar m in thi s c as e af

fe ct ed int er state c om

m er ce . P er

ry - - w ho w as c harg ed

w ith 1 poss es sin g th e fi re ar

m in Fl or ida

- - co nte nds that the gov er nm en t di d no t pr ove that the firear

m wa s m anufactured outside of Florida. H e also asserts that, even assum ing th at the fire arm wa s produced ou tside of Florida, the governm ent failed to sh ow t ha t t he gu n t rav el edto Flo rid a th ro ug h i nt ers ta te co m m erce . W e re vie wc ha lle nge s to the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce de nov o, r es olv ing all rea sonable inferences fr om the evidence in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict. See United States v. Rudisill, 187 F.3d 126 0, 1267 (11th Cir. 1999 ). W e m ust affirm Perr y ’ s convictio n “ unless, under no reasonable constructio n of the evidence, could th e j ury

have found [him ] guiltybey ond a reasonable doub t.” United State s v. G arcia , 405 F. 3d 12 60, 1269 (11t h Cir. 2005 ).3

A t P er ry ’ s tr ia l, S pe ci al A ge nt M ic ha el G ist ing er w iththe Bure auof A lc ohol , T oba cc o, F ir earm s and E xpl osi ve s te sti fi ed that the guninv olv ed

in thi s case - - a M ossb erg pistol grip s hotg un -- w as m anufactured in Connecticut, where M o s s b er g i s b as ed , a n dtra v el edi ni n t er s t at e c o m m er ce . Ag en tGi s t i n g er ’s te sti m ony pr ovi de d su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce that the gunP er ry pos se sse d w as in or af fe ct ed int er state c om

m er ce . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. S co tt, 263 F . 3d 1 270, 127 4 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) ( co nc lud ing that t es tim ony by S pe ci al A ge nt o f Bure auof A lc ohol , T oba cc o and F ir earm s th at f ir earm “ w as m anuf

ac tur ed in Ca lif or nia and ha d m ove d inint er state c om m er ce to G eo rg iaw he re [ de fe ndant] w as c au ght w ith the w ea pon” w as suf

fi ci en t “ to d em onstrate the r equir ed ne xus to i nte rs tate co m m er ce ”) ; Unit ed

S tate s v. D upr ee , 258 F . 3d 1 258, 126 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) (e xpl ai nin g th at

“by br an dis hin g af

ir earm that w as m anuf

ac tur ed in Ca lif or nia and fo und in h is c ar , ” de fe ndant’ s a ct s satis fi ed the “ m ini m al ne xus to i nte rs tate com m erce ” re quired by

section 922 (g)). Perry als o a ss ert s t ha t s ect io n 9 22 (g ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al as app li edto hi m . Ci tin g th e Su

pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n inU nit ed S tate s v. L ope z, 115 S . Ct . 162 4 (1995), Pe rry

contends th at his convictio n is uncon stitut ional because his firearm poss ession d id notbear a subst antial relationship to interstate com m erce .The ACCA provides, “ In the ca se of a person who violate s section 922(g ) . . . and h as three 2 previous convic tions by

any court . . . for

a violent fe lony

or a se rious d ru g o ffense, or both, c omm itt e d o n o c c a sio ns dif fe re nt fro m on e anothe r, su c h p e rs on sh a ll b e . . . im

pr iso ne d n ot l e ss than fiftee n y ear s.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). 4 W e re vie wc onst itutio na l i ssu es de nov o. U nit ed S tate s v. Wri ght , 392 F . 3d 1269 , 128 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . W e have c onsi ste ntl y uph el d th e va lid ity

of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g) against the constitu tional challenge raised by Per ry . See United St at es v. Mc A lli ste r, 77 F . 3d 3 87, 389 -9 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( re j ec tin g - - in the li ght of the S upr em e Co urt’ s L ope z de ci sio n - - both af ac ia l c ha lle nge to the co nst itutio na lity

of se ct ion922 (g ) an d ac ha lle nge to se ct ion922 (g ), a s a ppl ie d to de fe ndant, ba se d onde fe ndant’ s c la im that the gov er

nm en t f ai le d to sho whowhis gun poss es sio n a ff

ec te d in te rs tate c om

m er ce ); se e al so W

ri ght , 392 F . 3d at 12 80; United States v. Dunn, 345 F. 3d 12 85, 1297 (11t h Cir. 2003 ); Scott, 263 F.3d at 1274 ; D upr ee , 258 F . 3d at 12 59- 60 ( al l up hol din g c onst itutio na lity of se ct ion 922( g) ). P er

ry ’ s c onst itutio na l c la im

is w ith out

m er it. Perr y next contends that the district court erred in enhancing his senten ce pur suant t o th e A rm ed

Care er Cr im ina l A ct

( “ A CC A ”) ba se d onpr ior c onvi ct ion s that w er e not

pr ove n to the j ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, in vio latio n of the Si xt h Am en dm en t. W e rev ie w con st itut io na l ch al le ng es to a se nt en ce d e n ov o. 2 United States v. Cantellano, 430 F. 3d 11 42, 1144 (11t h Cir. 2005 ).5

Pe rr y ’ s po sit ionis pr ec lud ed

by the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in A lm en dare z- T or

re s v. U nit ed

S tate s, 118 S . Ct . 121 9 ( 1998 ). I n th at c as e, the Su pr em e Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at “ the gov er

nm en t ne ed

not a lle ge in its ind ic tm en t an d ne ed not pr ove be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t a

de fe ndant h ad

pr ior co nvi ct ion s f

or adis tr ic t c ourt t o us e tho se c onvi ct ion s f or pur pose s of e nhanc ing a se nt en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Mars ei ll e, 37 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). L at er de ci sio ns b y

the S upr em e Co urt, inc lud ing Appr en di v . N ewJe rs ey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), Blakely v. W ashingt on, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), and U nited St at es v. Bo ok er, 1 25 S.Ct . 73 8 (2 00 5) , hav e n otdi st ur be d t ha t co nc lu si on . U nit ed S tate s v. Cam ac ho- Ib ar que n, 410 F . 3d 1 307, 131 5 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, 126 S.Ct. 457 (200 5). “ Although rec ent decisions , including Shepard v. U nited St at es , 125 S . Ct . 125 4 ( 2005 ), m ay arg uably c as t do ubt

on the f uture pr ospe ct s of Alm endarez- Torr es’ s hold ing regarding prior conv ictions, the Suprem e Court has not e xpl ic itl y

ove rr ule d A lm en dare z- T or

re s. A s ar es ult , w e m

ust f oll ow A lm en dare z- T or

re s. ” I d. a t 13 16 n . 3. T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in enhanc ing P er

ry ’ s se nte nc e ba se d onhis pr ior c onvi ct ion s. W e af firm Per ry ’ s convictio n and sentence. AFFIRMED.