UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4431

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KURT JOSEPH HINTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David 

Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00315-TDS-1)

Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. 

Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, 

Terri-Lei O’Malley, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kurt Joseph Hinton was convicted by a jury of one 

count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (“Count One”), one 

count of possession of a firearm he knew or had reason to 

believe was stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2006) 

(“Count Two”), and one count of possession of an unregistered 

firearm with a barrel length of less than eighteen inches and an 

overall length of less than twenty-six inches, in violation of 

26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2006) (“Count Three”). The district court 

sentenced Hinton to sixty-two months in prison for each count, 

to run concurrently. Hinton timely appealed his convictions in 

Counts One and Two, arguing that the district court violated his 

constitutional rights by instructing the jury that Hinton’s 

possession was “in or affecting commerce” if the jury found that 

the firearm had travelled “at some time from one state to 

another, or from a foreign country to the United States.” 

Hinton contends that the interstate commerce element, as applied 

to him, is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the 

United States Constitution. We affirm.

We review Hinton’s preserved challenge to the 

constitutionality of the statute de novo. United States v. 

Buculei, 262 F.3d 322, 327 (4th Cir. 2001). Hinton admits that 

the precedent of this Circuit forecloses his current argument. 
3

See United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 137-38 (4th Cir. 

2001) (rejecting argument made in reliance on Jones v. United 

States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v. Morrison, 529 

U.S. 598 (2000) that transport across state lines was 

insufficient to establish possession “in or affecting” 

interstate commerce); United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808, 810-

11 (4th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument made in reliance 

on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)). Moreover, 

Hinton correctly recognizes that a three-judge panel of this 

court cannot overrule another three-judge panel where, as here, 

no intervening Supreme Court decision casts doubt on existing 

precedent. United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th 

Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED