United States v. Guillory

86 F. App'x 742

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 10, 2004
• Docket: 03-40708
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

David Wayne Guillory appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction in that the Government failed to prove that he possessed the shotgun at issue. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 348-49 (5th Cir.1993). A review of the trial transcript reveals that Special Agent Chris Reed of the Bureau of Tobacco, Acohol, and Firearms (ATF) testified that Guillory admitted to him that he had pawned the shotgun. The testimony of Torrance Ray Harris, the pawn shop employee who handled the transaction, testified that he recognized Guillory as the man who had pawned the shotgun. The Government also introduced into evidence the shotgun pawn ticket bearing Guillory’s signature. In light of this evidence, a rational trier of fact could have found that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Guillory possessed the shotgun at issue. See United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir.1999).

Guillory argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on the unconstitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He concedes that “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question” in this circuit. United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001). He raises the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.

Guillory also argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the indictment did not contain any information regarding his pri- or convictions. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, see United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th Cir.2002), and he is raising the issue solely to preserve it for possible further review.

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.