Court Opinion

ID: 29996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:48:42+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:00.489902
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                  _________________________

                                         No. 02-10589
                                    SUMMARY CALENDAR
                                  _________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                              Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JAMES LEE ALEXANDER,

                              Defendant - Appellant.

______________________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                     Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division
                                 (5:01-CR-129-1-C)
______________________________________________________________________________
                                   January 28, 2003

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

       James Lee Alexander appeals his jury-trial convictions and ensuing sentences for being a

felon in possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting and possession of a firearm in furtherance

of a drug-trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 2, 924(c)(1)(A). Finding

no error, we AFFIRM.

       1
        Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.

                                                -1-
       Alexander argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it fails

to require a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. He also contends that the Government

should be required to prove the knowledge element of the same statute.

       This Court has held that “the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is not open to

question.” United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). We have also held that

“knowledge of a legal obligation is not an element of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g).” United States v.

Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 82 (5th Cir. 1988). Because this Court is bound by its own precedent,

Alexander’s arguments relating to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), both facially and as

applied, are foreclosed. See United States v. Taylor, 933 F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). Recent

decisions by the Supreme Court do not alter this Court’s jurisprudence regarding the

constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.

2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002).

       Alexander also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. Methamphetamine was being

manufactured inside Alexander’s mobile home. Five firearms were located in plain view just inside

an open bedroom closet door and the light was on in that closet. Ammunition was found in the

closet with the firearms and it was strewn all about the residence. Given the accessibility of the

firearms and ammunition and the proximity of those items to the drug-manufacturing operation,

there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the firearms were used in furtherance

of the drug-manufacturing operation. See United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 410-11

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1102 (2001); see United States v. Pankhurst, 118 F.3d

345, 352 (5th Cir. 1997).

                                                 -2-
AFFIRMED.

            -3-