United States v. Carlos Gregorio Martinez, AKA Carlos Martinez Estrada

Carlos Gregorio Martinez appeals his convictions for armed carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 , using or carrying a firearm during commission of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1), and being an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e).

On appeal, Martinez argues that: (1) the Anti-Car Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 , was enacted in violation of the commerce clause; (2) section 2119 is void for vagueness and ambiguity; (3) section 2119 requires specific rather than general intent for conviction; (4) the imposition of consecutive sentences under section 924(c)(1) and section 2119 is a violation of double jeopardy; and (5) the jury should have been instructed on the consequences of finding the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.

I

Commerce Clause

Martinez argues that Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause in enacting section 2119, which provides in relevant part:

This argument has been rejected by every court that has addressed it, save one. As the Sixth Circuit explained:

United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 106, 109 (6th Cir.1994).

We may “invalidate legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause only if it is clear that there is no rational basis for a…