United States v. Sampson ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20195
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OZIE LAQUENTEN SAMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-484-1
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ozie Laquenten Sampson (“Sampson”) appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that
the district court erred by permitting the Government to meet its
burden of proof on a disputed sentencing factor by relying on the
presentence report (“PSR”) and that the factual basis for the
“interstate commerce” element of the offense of conviction was
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20195
-2-
insufficient to support the guilty plea. He concedes that these
issues are foreclosed by this court’s precedent, but he seeks to
preserve the issues for Supreme Court review.
In the absence of any evidence that the information in the
PSR was materially untrue, the district court did not err in
finding the PSR reliable and adopting the factual findings
therein for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Davis, 76
F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996).
We have held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s interstate
commerce element is satisfied by the possession of a firearm that
was manufactured in a different state or country. United States
v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 & n.12 (5th Cir. 2001), cert.
denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002). This element is satisfied
because the firearm possessed by Sampson previously traveled in
interstate commerce. See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240,
242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). As one panel of this court may not
overrule or ignore a prior panel decision, see United States v.
Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 1999), this issue is
foreclosed.
AFFIRMED.