United States v. Byrd

Second Circuit

United States v. Byrd

169 F. App'x 662

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2006

DocketNo. 05-1558-CR

StatusPublished

This text of 169 F. App'x 662 (United States v. Byrd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Byrd, 169 F. App'x 662 (2d Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Byrd appeals his conviction of one count of possession of a [663]*663firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), entered March 16, 2005, subject to a guilty plea (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge). On appeal, defendant contends that Congress lacks the power under the Commerce Clause to criminalize possession of a firearm simply because the firearm moved at one time in interstate commerce. We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

By pleading guilty, defendant waived his right to appeal any issue not jurisdictional. Defendant’s assertion that his challenge to Congress’s authority to enact § 922(g)(1) goes to the subject-matter jurisdiction of this court is incorrect. See United States v. Lasaga, 328 F.3d 61, 63-64 (2d Cir. 2003). Defendant has therefore waived his challenge to the statute’s constitutionality.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Byrd appeals his conviction of one count of possession of a [663]*663firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), entered March 16, 2005, subject to a guilty plea (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge). On appeal, defendant contends that Congress lacks the power under the Commerce Clause to criminalize possession of a firearm simply because the firearm moved at one time in interstate commerce. We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

By pleading guilty, defendant waived his right to appeal any issue not jurisdictional. Defendant’s assertion that his challenge to Congress’s authority to enact § 922(g)(1) goes to the subject-matter jurisdiction of this court is incorrect. See United States v. Lasaga, 328 F.3d 61, 63-64 (2d Cir. 2003). Defendant has therefore waived his challenge to the statute’s constitutionality.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 F. App'x 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-byrd-ca2-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack