United States v. Anderson

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D April 24, 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 02-20714 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEBRA ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-680-ALL --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Debra Anderson (“Anderson”) appeals her conviction for being

a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). Anderson argues that the district

court erred in accepting her guilty plea because the factual

basis was insufficient to establish the interstate commerce

element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Anderson also contends that

the enhancement provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-20714 -2-

unconstitutional based on the holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Anderson acknowledges that her arguments are foreclosed by

circuit precedent. Nevertheless, Anderson seeks to preserve the

issues for Supreme Court review. Because the factual basis

indicated that the firearm Anderson possessed was not

manufactured in Texas, Anderson’s conviction was supported by the

evidence. See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir.

1996). Anderson’s contention that the enhancement provision in

18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is unconstitutional lacks merit because

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 24 (1998). See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States

v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently,

Anderson’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.