United States v. Hernandez

190 F. Supp. 2d 773, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4612, 2002 WL 437960

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KATZ, Senior District Judge.

This Motion raises the issue of defense counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to raise the constitutionality of the statute forbidding the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

Following a hearing on defendant’s Motion to Suppress, this court denied the Motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed following defendant’s guilty plea and sentence. The weapon in question was manufactured outside of Pennsylvania.

The constitutional challenge has been rejected. The statute is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Gateward, 84 F.3d 670 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 907, 117 S.Ct. 268, 136 L.Ed.2d 192 (1996); United States v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.2001).

An appropriate Order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2002, upon consideration of defendant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the response, it is hereby ORDERED that the said Motion is DENIED.

There is no basis to issue a certificate of appealability.