Laurence R. Otto v. United States

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3634

___________

Laurence Robert Otto, *

*

Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota.

United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 31, 2000 Filed: February 3, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laurence R. Otto, who was convicted of possessing an unregistered sawed-off rifle in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), see United States v. Otto, 64 F.3d 367, 369-71 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1133 (1996), appeals the district court’s1 order denying his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court correctly denied Otto’s motion because he did not request and obtain this court’s authorization prior to filing it. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255,

1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2244(b)(2), (3). We nevertheless observe that Eighth Circuit precedent precludes Otto from being successful on his claim that his section 5861(d) conviction was unconstitutional under United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). See United States v. Hall, 171 F.3d 1133, 1142 (8th Cir. 1999) (Congress had authority under taxing clause to enact § 5861(d) and criminalize possession of unregistered firearm). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.