114 F3d 1198 United States v. Ingraham

114 F.3d 1198

97 CJ C.A.R. 934

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William INGRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-8079.
(D.C. No. 96-CV-151-B & D.C. No. 91-CR-30)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 10, 1997.

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

3

William Ingraham was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mr. Ingraham filed a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the federal drug statutes do not constitute a valid exercise of congressional power under the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The district court dismissed the petition as frivolous. We have held, post-Lopez, that the regulation of intrastate drug activity under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), implicates interstate commerce and is thus a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 136 (1996); accord United States v. Tucker, 90 F.3d 1135, 1140 (6th Cir.1996) (collecting cases).

4

We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Mr. Ingraham's petition as frivolous.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3