Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius KOLLOCK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-11
Citations: 10 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 00-4876
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius KOLLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius KOLLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4876.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 6, 2001.
Decided May 11, 2001.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, NC, for appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A jury found Cornelius Kollock guilty of one count of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000). On appeal, Kollock contends that: (1) Section 922(g) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, and (2) the district court erred by applying a 4-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with a felony. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that Kollock's challenge to § 922(g) is without merit. See United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 138-39 (4th Cir.2001).
We have reviewed the record and find that the 4 level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003-04 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.