Court Opinion

ID: 2964439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:39.131184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:51.515350
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1692

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

            The opinion  of this court issued  on October 28,  1996 is amended
        as follows:

            On page  2,  line 6,  correct  the  spelling of  "inerrelated"  to
        "interrelated."

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1692

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Brett D. Baber and Rudman & Winchell on brief for appellant.
            ______________     _________________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United States  Attorney, James  L. McCarthy and
            _________________                           __________________
        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
        _____________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 28, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   David  L.  Bowden  appeals from  his
                      ___________

            conviction for unlawful  possession of a firearm by  a felon,

            in  violation  of 18  U.S.C.     922(g)(1)  and 924(e).   The

            government has moved for  summary affirmance pursuant to Loc.

            R.  27.1.  We grant the government's motion for the following

            reasons.

                      Bowden makes three  interrelated arguments.   First

            he  contends  that    922(g)  is  unconstitutional under  the

            reasoning  of United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995).
                          _____________    _____

            "This  issue  is no  longer open  in  this circuit."   United
                                                                   ______

            States v.  Joost, 92 F.3d  7, 14  (1st Cir. 1996).   Bowden's
            ______     _____

            remaining  arguments are  that    922(g) requires  proof that

            possession  of the  firearm had  a "substantial  effect" upon

            interstate  commerce, and  that  the  jury instructions  were

            flawed for not including that requirement.  In  United States
                                                            _____________

            v. Blais,  No. 95-1093,  slip op. at  8 (1st Cir.  August 28,
               _____

            1996), we rejected precisely  the arguments that Bowden makes

            here "about Lopez's alteration of the Scarborough standard of
                        _____                     ___________

            minimal nexus."

                      Bowden's conviction is summarily affirmed. See Loc.
                                             _________ ________  ___

            R. 27.1.

                                         -2-