United States v. Collins

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50022
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARL JOSEPH COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CR-198-ALL-H
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carl Joseph Collins appeals his jury-trial conviction for
being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Collins argues that the district court erred by denying his
motion for a judgment of acquittal and that the evidence at trial
was insufficient to support his conviction. Because Collins
properly preserved these objections in the district court, we
review the denial of his motion to acquit de novo and consider

-- 1 of 2 --

1See United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 882 (5th Cir.
2000).
2United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir. 2002).
3United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999).
2
whether “a rational trier of fact could have found that the
evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond
a reasonable doubt.”1 In the instant case, testimony established
that the firearm was manufactured in Switzerland and possessed in
Texas. We have “repeatedly held that evidence that a firearm has
traveled interstate at some point in the past is sufficient to
support a conviction under § 922(g), even if the defendant
possessed the firearm entirely intrastate.”2 Therefore, Collins’s
arguments are without merit.
Collins also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional as applied. However, we have rejected such
arguments and concluded that the “constitutionality of § 922(g) is
not open to question.”3 This argument is also without merit.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --