Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jonathan DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-30
Citations: 239 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 07-50003
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jonathan DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 83–83

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jonathan DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50003
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 30, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Charles O. Grigson, Law Offices of Charles O. Grigson, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Jonathan Davis appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession of stolen ammunition and possession of a firearm with an obliterated or removed serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) and (k). The government has moved for summary affirmance. Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to file a brief.
Davis asserts that the enactment of § 922(3) and (k) exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause because the subsections did not require a significant effect on interstate commerce. He has not shown that these subsections violate the Commerce Clause. See United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 319-22 (5th Cir.1999). Davis also contends that § 922(3) and (k) are unconstitutional as applied to him because his federal offenses arose from the same factual patterns as state charges for theft and unlawful appropriation. In light of his admission that the firearm and ammunition in question passed through interstate commerce, § 922(3) and(k) were constitutional as applied to him. See id. at 322.
Accordingly, the government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative request for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.