Armstrong

MEMORANDUM *

Lee Armstrong, Sherry Armstrong, and Clarence Davenport challenge the district court’s denial of their habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , contending that insufficient evidence existed to support their convictions; 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i) is unconstitutional as applied to these facts; and Sherry Armstrong’s trial counsel was ineffective.

I

Even assuming this claim is not barred by the non-retroactivity principle announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), an issue we need not decide, we reject their contention that insufficient evidence existed to establish the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i) as set forth in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 , 120 S.Ct. 1904 , 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000). To determine whether the interstate commerce element is met, we look to “the function of the building itself, and then a determination of whether that function affects interstate commerce.” Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 854 , 120 S. Ct. 1904 , 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000). The building at issue meets this requirement because it was a commercial rental property. See Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858, 862 , 105 S.Ct.…