Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Luis Arellano, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Luis Arellano's conviction for carjacking. Arellano argued that the federal carjacking statute exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The court reviewed for plain error since this challenge was not raised in the district court. The court found no plain error because it had previously rejected similar Commerce Clause challenges to the carjacking statute. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-02-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4479

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Luis Arellano's conviction for carjacking. Arellano argued that the federal carjacking statute exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The court reviewed for plain error since this challenge was not raised in the district court. The court found no plain error because it had previously rejected similar Commerce Clause challenges to the carjacking statute. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    16 views3 pages

    United States v. Luis Arellano, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Luis Arellano's conviction for carjacking. Arellano argued that the federal carjacking statute exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The court reviewed for plain error since this challenge was not raised in the district court. The court found no plain error because it had previously rejected similar Commerce Clause challenges to the carjacking statute. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4479

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    LUIS MELITO ARELLANO,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00316-D-1)

    Submitted:

    February 12, 2015

    Decided:

    February 18, 2015

    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Noah A. Clements, THE CLEMENTS FIRM, Washington, D.C., for


    Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
    May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Luis
    violation

    of

    Arellano
    18

    was

    U.S.C.

    convicted

    2119

    (2012),

    of
    and

    carjacking,
    sentenced

    to

    in
    168

    months imprisonment.

    On appeal, Arellano contends that the

    district

    erred

    him,

    court

    where

    plainly

    the

    federal

    in

    exercising

    carjacking

    statute

    jurisdiction
    exceeds

    legislative authority under the Commerce Clause.

    over

    Congresss

    We affirm.

    Arellanos challenge to the federal carjacking statute


    was not raised in the district court; we thus review the courts
    decision for plain error.
    732 (1993).
    (2) was

    United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

    Arellano must show that an error (1) occurred,

    plain,

    (4) seriously

    (3)

    affected

    affect[ed]

    his

    the

    fairness,

    reputation of judicial proceedings.


    We

    have

    reviewed

    substantial

    the

    integrity,

    or

    and

    public

    Id.

    record

    district court did not plainly err.

    rights,

    and

    conclude

    that

    the

    We have twice considered

    and rejected similar Commerce Clause challenges to the federal


    carjacking statute.

    See United States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475,

    489-90 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cobb, 144 F.3d 319,
    321-22 (4th Cir. 1998).
    We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.
    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like