Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-11949-PBS.
March 26, 2002.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pro se petitioner Benjamin Lewis was convicted of being a felon-in-possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He brings this timely habeas petition challenging his conviction on the ground that the evidence at trial was insufficient to satisfy the "in or affecting commerce" element of Section 922(g)(1), and that the conviction is unconstitutional under United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000) and Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000).
With respect to the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the testimony of Special Agent Allan Offringa of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that the ammunition was manufactured outside of Massachusetts and necessarily traveled across one or more state lines before it was possessed by Lewis is sufficient to meet the "minimal nexus" test enunciated in Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 577, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). See United States v. Cardoza, 129 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1997) (involving a single bullet).
With respect to the challenge to the constitutionality of the Scarborough test in the wake of Jones and Morrison, at least one circuit has rejected an identical challenge. I adopt its rationale. See United States v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2001), petition for cert. filed (February 15, 2002) (No. 01- 8514); see generally United States v. Blais, 98 F.3d 647, 649 (lst Cir. 1996) ("Scarborough is still good law after Lopez.").
The Supreme Court has stated, "`[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.'" Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1997) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 485, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989)). Our Circuit has adhered to this directive. See National Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38, 59 (1st Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus is DENIED.