US v. Sir Battle, No. 08-4715 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4715 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SIR MARQUIS BATTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00236-MR-1) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: April 1, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Raquel K. Wilson, Matthew R. Segal, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Cortney Escaravage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sir Marquis Battle appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Battle argues § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. (1994)), 549 and (reversing (1995) Jones (invalidating v. United U.S. 848 (2000) Finding is foreclosed by arson 922(q)(1)(A) private residence was not used in interstate commerce). claim federal 529 § because Battle s under States, U.S.C. statute that conviction 18 Circuit precedent, we affirm his conviction. This court has previously considered and rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) based upon Lopez, in United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808, 810-11 (4th Cir. 1996). We have further held that Jones does not affect our decisions regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g). States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 138 (4th Cir. United 2001). Accordingly, any argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional must fail. See also United States v. Nathan, 202 F.3d 230, 234 (4th 2000) Cir. (upholding § 922(g)(1)); United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718, 723 (4th Cir. 1999) (upholding § 922(g)(8) and stating that jurisdictional element applies to all nine subsections included in Section 922(g) ). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
