United States v. Leal

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
February 1, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-20148
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR LINO LEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:05-CR-2-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Victor Leal pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). As an armed ca-
reer criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), Leal was subject to a man-
datory minimum sentence of 180 months of imprisonment; the district
court sentenced him to 192 months.

-- 1 of 2 --

Leal argues that the court erred in determining that his Texas
convictions for burglary of a habitation were qualifying violent
felony convictions for purposes of § 924(e). Leal acknowledges
that this issue is foreclosed by United States v. Silva, 957 F.2d
157, 162 (5th Cir. 1992), but he raises it here to preserve it for
further review.
Leal also contends that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional be-
cause it does not require a substantial effect on interstate com-
merce. This court has repeatedly held that the constitutionality
of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question. See United States v.
Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). In the alternative,
Leal avers that the evidence was insufficient to establish an ef-
fect on interstate commerce. “[E]vidence that a gun was manufac-
tured in one state and possessed in another state is sufficient to
establish a past connection between the firearm and interstate com-
merce.” United States v. Pierson, 139 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir.
1998). Leal concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by circuit
precedent, but he raises them here to preserve them for further
review.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --