Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel K. REVUELTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 217 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 05-10823
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel K. REVUELTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 730–731

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel K. REVUELTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10823.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007 .
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
Loretta A. Sheehan, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Pamela J. Byrne, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel K. Revuelto appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a), and being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Revuelto contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)'s prohibition of firearm and ammunition possession is an unconstitutional exertion of the government's power to regulate interstate commerce, as applied to Revuelto's intra-state possession of a firearm and ammunition.
This argument, however, was previously rejected by this court in United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir.1995), and again in United States v. Rousseau, 257 F.3d 925 (9th Cir.2001). See United States v. Paopao, 469 F.3d 760, 767-68 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the district court properly denied Revuelto's motion to dismiss, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.