UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID BOLES; CONNIE CHRISTOPHER;
CHRIS DICKINSON,
Claimants-Appellants,
                                                               No. 00-1878
and

ONE 47MM CANON & 67 OTHER
FIREARMS IDENTIFIEDIN ATTACHMENT
"A",AND 37,742 ROUNDSAND
PIECESOF AMMUNITIONIN 47 LOTS
IDENTIFIEDIN ATTACHMENT "B",
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CA-99-1874-A)

Submitted: December 20, 2000

Decided: January 10, 2001

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Boles appeals the civil in rem forfeiture of firearms and
ammunition seized at his residence and his mother's residence. Boles
pled guilty to 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) for possession of a firearm after
conviction of a felony. The Government sought forfeiture of the fire-
arms and ammunition and the district court granted the Government's
motion for summary judgment. The district court then denied Appel-
lants' motion for reconsideration. We review the grant of a motion for
summary judgment de novo, Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988), viewing the facts in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). We review the denial of a
motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Collison v. Inter-
national Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000).

Appellants raise four issues on appeal: (1) whether Boles was
estopped from claiming that forfeited firearms were involved in a vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) by virtue of his guilty plea to that
offense; (2) whether Boles' guilty plea may be admitted into evidence
in the forfeiture proceeding; (3) whether § 922(g) is constitutional
under the Commerce Clause; and (4) whether the forfeiture violated
the Excessive Fines Clause.

                   2
We find Appellants' argument that they are not parties to be unper-
suasive. Furthermore, we find under our holding in United States v.
Ahmad, 213 F.3d 805, 811 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 2000
WL 1618347 (U.S. Nov. 27, 2000) (No. 00-639), that Boles' guilty
plea is admissible in the civil forfeiture proceeding and Boles is
estopped from relitigating the facts underlying his conviction. We
agree with our sister circuits that § 922(g) does not offend the Com-
merce Clause because it requires a particularized finding of a link to
interstate commerce. See, e.g., United States v. Napier, ___ F.3d ___,
2000 WL 1734924, *6-*7 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2000) (No. 00-5290);
United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 515 (9th Cir. 2000); United
States v. Wesela, 223 F.3d 656, 659 (7th Cir. 2000). Finally, we find
the forfeiture of firearms that Boles is not legally permitted to possess
to be remedial in nature, see United States v. One Assortment of 89
Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 364 (1984), and that the amount of the for-
feiture is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's
offense; therefore, the forfeiture does not offend the Excessive Fines
Clause. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 333 (1998).
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court.

It does not appear that Appellants advanced new facts or legal the-
ories in their motion for reconsideration. We therefore conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
reconsideration and we affirm based on the reasoning of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                  3
3
