USA v. Wilkins, No. 05-20518 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 05-20518 Conference Calendar June 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DELAR WILKINS, also known as Delmar Wilkins, also known as Delman Wilkins, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-6-ALL -------------------Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Delar Wilkins appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He raises two issues in this appeal. First, Wilkins argues the district court erred by finding that his prior Texas felony conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4B1.2(a). The district court correctly found that Wilkins s prior conviction for burglary of a habitation was a conviction for a crime of violence. * See United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-20518 -2420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006); United States v. Hornsby, 88 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1996). Second, Wilkins contends that the felon-in-possession-of-afirearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because it criminalizes the possession of firearms which do not substantially affect interstate commerce and that there was insufficient evidence to establish there was a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Wilkins correctly concedes that these arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 & n.12 (5th Cir. 2001). them for further review. AFFIRMED. He raises the issues to preserve
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.
