United States v. Michael Lee Young

81 F.3d 171 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lee YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-10229. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 11, 1996. * Decided March 27, 1996. Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Young argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) is unconstitutional under United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995). We have rejected this contention in United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456 , 1462 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1995) and are bound by that decision. 3 Young argues that there was insufficient corroboration for his out of court admissions, under Opper v. United States, 75 S.Ct. 158, 163 (1954) and United States v. Lopez-Alvarez, 970 F.2d 583, 589 (9th Cir.1992). But there was "substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of [Young's] statement." See Opper, 75 S.Ct. at 164 . Young matched the description…