[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 03 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-2 05 03 -CM A-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us DWAYNE DU PUCH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10038 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 4Dwayne Dup uc h app eal s h is co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d

92 4( e)(1 ) of

be in g aco nv ic te d fe lo n i n p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm an d a m m un it io n. Dup uc h c on te nd s § 92 2( g) (1 ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al , faci al ly andas app li ed , in vi ol at io n o f th e Co m

m erce Claus e, be cau se th e p os se ss io n o f fi rearm s b y a co nv ic te d fe lo n d oe s n otha ve a subs ta nt ia l ef fecton in te rs ta te co m

m erce . Dup uc h ackno wled ge s, h owe ve r, th atth is Co urt’s p rece de ntfor ecl os es hi s ar gu m en t tha t § 9 22 (g )(1 ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al . Pu rs uantto § 9 22 (g )(1 ), itis un la wfu l fo r a co nv ic te d fe lo n “ to sh ip or tra ns po rt i n i nt ers ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce , or p os se ss in or a ffec ti ng co m m erce , an y fir earm or a m m un it io n; or t o re cei ve an y fir earm or a m m un it io n wh ic h h as be ensh ip pe d o r tr an sp orte d i n i nt ers ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce .” 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). W e h av e rep eat ed ly hel d t ha t § 92 2( g) (1 ) is no t a f aci al ly un co ns ti tu ti on al ex erci se of C on gr es s’s p owe r un de r th e Co m m erce Claus e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S

co tt , 26 3 F .3d12 70 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (h ol di ng “ th e juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t o f th e st atut e, i.e. , th e requi rem en t tha t the fel on ‘ po ss es s i n oraffe ct in g c omm erce , any firearm or a m m un it io n,’ imm

un iz es § 9 22 (g )(1 ) fro m [a] faci al co ns ti tu ti on al att ack ”); Uni te d Sta tes v. Du pr ee , 25 8 F .3d12 58 , 12 59 -6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (reject in g t he arg um en t tha t § 92 2( g) (1 ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al , bo th faci al ly andas app li ed , bec au se Co ng res s ex ceed edit s au th or it y un de r th e 2 Case: 12-10038 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 4Co m

m erce Claus e inpa ss in g t he st atut e); Uni te d Sta tes v. N ic ho ls , 12 4 F .3d12 65 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng § 9 22 (g )(1 ) was no t an un co ns ti tu ti on al ex te ns io n of Co ng res s’s Co m

m erce Claus e p owe r); Uni te d Sta tes v. McAl list er , 77 F.3d38 7, 38 9- 90 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th atas l on g a s t he weap on in qu es ti on ha s a

“ m in im al ne xu s” to in te rs ta te co m m erce , § 9 22 (g ) is co ns ti tu ti on al ). Thu s, Dup uc h’s ar gu m en t tha t § 92 2( g) is faci al ly unc on st itut io na l b ecau se Co ng res s ex ceed edit s p owe r un de r th e Co m m erce Claus e in en act in g t he st atut e is fo recl os edby our

pre ced en t. Fu rth er, Dupu ch ’s arg um en t tha t § 92 2( g) (1 ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al as app li ed to hi m is for ecl os edby prece de nt . This Co urt h as he ldth at§ 9 22 (g )(1 ) was no t un co ns ti tu ti on al as app li edto a de fen dantwho on ly pos se ss eda fi rearm in tra st at e be cau se “ § 9 22 (g ) is anatt em ptto reg ul at e g un s t ha t h av e a co nn ect io n t o in te rs ta te co m

m erce ” an d t he go ve rn m en t d em on st rat edth atth e fi rearm in qu es ti on “ ha d t rav el edin in te rs ta te co m m erce .” McAll is te r , 77 F.3dat 3 90 ; se e al so Dup re e , 25 8 F .3dat 1 26 0 (h ol di ng th atbrand is hi ng a fi rearm th atwas m anuf actur edin an ot he r st at e su ffi ces to est ab li sh th e requi red“ m in im al ne xu s t o in te rs ta te co m

m erce ”). Dup uc h was co nv ic te d o f po ss es si ng th e fi rearm an d amm un it io n i n F lo rid a, an d s ti pu la te d t ha t the fir earm an d a m m un it io n wer e

3 Case: 12-10038 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 4m anuf

actur edou ts id e o f Fl or id a. Thu s, the fir earm an d a m m un it io n t rav el edin in te rs ta te co m

m erce , and§ 9 22 (g )(1 ) is no t u nc on st itut io na l as ap pl ie d t o Dupu ch . AFFIRMED .

4 Case: 12-10038 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 4 of 4