Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
U.S. v. IRISH, 285 Fed.Appx. 326 (8th Cir. 2008)
285 Fed.Appx. 326
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2008-07-31
- Topic
- general
U.S. v. IRISH, 285 Fed.Appx. 326 (8th Cir. 2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Reginald IRISH, Appellant. No. 06-4082.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted: July 30, 2008. Filed: July 31, 2008. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. IRISH, 285 Fed.Appx. 326 (8th Cir. 2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
U.S. v. IRISH,285 Fed.Appx. 326(8th Cir. 2008)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Reginald IRISH, Appellant.
No. 06-4082.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2008.
Filed: July 31, 2008.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.Page 327
Ian A. Lewis, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Reginald Irish, Springfield, MO, pro se.
James J. Kelleher, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
Reginald Irish, Springfield, MO, pro se.
James J. Kelleher, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Reginald Irish pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and924(a)(2). The district court1sentenced 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 underAnders 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.
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. UnitedStates,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 underPenson 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.
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. UnitedStates,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 underPenson 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.