Patten

MEMORANDUM **

Agustus Patrick Patten appeals pro se his jury trial conviction for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of making a false statement during a firearm purchase, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 922(a)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review jurisdictional and constitutional claims de novo. United States v. Juvenile Male, 118 F.3d 1344, 1346 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 471 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

Citing to United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 , 115 S.Ct. 1624 , 131 L.Ed.2d 626 *530 (1995), Patten contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause. We have repeatedly rejected this argument, United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 563 (9th Cir.1996), and do so here. See United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 514-15 (9th Cir.2000).

Patten contends that under Article III, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to decide this case. He is incorrect. Because 18 U.S.C. § 922 is a law of the United States enacted by Congress, see U.S. Const, art. I, § 1, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising from it. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also…