United States v. Daniel Garcia

Appellant Daniel Garcia (Garcia) challenges his conviction for using a pipe bomb to damage a vehicle and apartment building in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844®. Garcia contends that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the Commerce Clause jurisdictional requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 844®, because the government failed to demonstrate that Garcia’s criminal conduct affected interstate commerce. Garcia also maintains that the district court erred in instructing the jury that damage to the rental apartment building and vehicle met the jurisdictional mandates, and that 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i) is unconstitutional on its face. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Indictment

In a four-count indictment, Garcia was charged with “maliciously damaging] and destroying] and attempting] to damage and destroy, by means of an explosive, a building and vehicle used in interstate commerce, and in an activity affecting interstate commerce” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844Í). The indictment alleged that Garcia “knowingly carried] and use[d] a destructive device, to wit, a pipe bomb” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A).

B. Garcia’s Motion To Dismiss The Indictment

Prior to…