Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Reginald IRISH, Appellant.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Irish pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Irish to 77 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Irish's counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Irish has filed three pro se briefs. For the following reasons, we reject the arguments that they have raised.

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

First, the Second Amendment does not bar laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. See Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, ___ U.S.___, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2816-17, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). Second, Congress did not exceed its authority or violate the Commerce Clause when it enacted section 922(g). See United States v. Hill, 386 F.3d 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Shepherd, 284 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2002). Third, general federal criminal laws like section 922(g) apply nationwide. See Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 171, 118 S.Ct. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 271 (1998). Last, the required nexus between a firearm and commerce is established by showing that the firearm at one time traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955, 959 (8th Cir. 2004).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and deny Irish's motions for appointment of new counsel and for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. The judgment is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

U.S. v. IRISH
(Jul 31, 2008)