* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 26 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. WALTER KNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-1228 (D.C. No. 93-CR-358-N) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Defendant-appellant Walter Knight, appearing pro se , appeals the district court’s order dismissing his post-appeal motions to vacate his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), convicted felon inpossession of a firearm. Defendant alleges the federal court was without jur isdiction to prosecute him because the State of Colorado, not the federal gove rnment, had jurisdiction over the geographical location where the criminal activi ty occurred. Defendant further alleges his attorney provided constitutionally inef fective assistance for failing to raise this claim, and the federal prosecutor is lia ble for damages based on the decision to file criminal charges against him absen t federal jurisdiction. This court has previously rejected the argument rai sed here by defendant that the federal district court is without jurisdic tion to prosecute crimes because the States are sovereign. See United States v. Lampley , 127 F.3d 1231, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1098 (1998). “[S]o long as there is a constitutionally authorized federal nexus, the fede ral government is free to act anywhere within the United States.” Id. at 1246. “Section 922(g)’s requirement that the firearm have been, at some time, in inters tate commerce is sufficient to establish its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause.” United States v. Bolton , 68 F.3d 396, 400 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Defendant relies on 40 U.S.C. § 255 for his argument that the government was required to establish jurisdiction over the loc ation of his criminal activity to-3-

establish its jurisdiction to prosecute him for vio lating a federal criminal statute. Section 255, which pertains to purchase of land by the United States, does not require that the government acquire title to the pr operty on which a crime occurred as a prerequisite to a criminal prosecutio n. Therefore, we hold that the federal district court had jurisdiction to prosecut e defendant for violating § 922(g)(1). Because the federal court clearly had jurisdiction to prosecute defendant, we reject his malicious prosecution claim based on his belief that the federal prosecutor was without jurisdiction to file crimina l charges. Similarly, we reject defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of coun sel. Counsel’s failure to challenge the federal court’s jurisdiction over def endant did not constitute ineffective assistance because the issue is withoutmerit. See United States v. Cook , 45 F.3d 388, 392-93 (10th Cir. 1995) (counsel’s f ailure to raise a meritless issue is not constitutionally ineffective assistanc e of counsel).-4-

Defendant’s pending motions are denied. The judgme nt of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge