
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1692                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                              DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR.,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                                     ERRATA SHEET            The opinion  of this court issued  on October 28,  1996 is amended        as follows:            On page  2,  line 6,  correct  the  spelling of  "inerrelated"  to        "interrelated."                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1692                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                              DAVID LYNWOOD BOWDEN, JR.,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Brett D. Baber and Rudman & Winchell on brief for appellant.            ______________     _________________            Jay P.  McCloskey, United States  Attorney, James  L. McCarthy and            _________________                           __________________        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for        _____________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                   October 28, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.   David  L.  Bowden  appeals from  his                      ___________            conviction for unlawful  possession of a firearm by  a felon,            in  violation  of 18  U.S.C.     922(g)(1)  and 924(e).   The            government has moved for  summary affirmance pursuant to Loc.            R.  27.1.  We grant the government's motion for the following            reasons.                      Bowden makes three  interrelated arguments.   First            he  contends  that    922(g)  is  unconstitutional under  the            reasoning  of United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995).                          _____________    _____            "This  issue  is no  longer open  in  this circuit."   United                                                                   ______            States v.  Joost, 92 F.3d  7, 14  (1st Cir. 1996).   Bowden's            ______     _____            remaining  arguments are  that    922(g) requires  proof that            possession  of the  firearm had  a "substantial  effect" upon            interstate  commerce, and  that  the  jury instructions  were            flawed for not including that requirement.  In  United States                                                            _____________            v. Blais,  No. 95-1093,  slip op. at  8 (1st Cir.  August 28,               _____            1996), we rejected precisely  the arguments that Bowden makes            here "about Lopez's alteration of the Scarborough standard of                        _____                     ___________            minimal nexus."                      Bowden's conviction is summarily affirmed. See Loc.                                             _________ ________  ___            R. 27.1.                                         -2-
