## Facts

- Frederick Cardoza, a previously convicted felon, agreed to help sixteen-year-old Myron Ragsdale obtain a handgun.
- Cardoza located a seller offering a 9mm semiautomatic handgun for $200.
- In Walnut Park in Roxbury, Massachusetts, Ragsdale paid $200 for the handgun and nine rounds of ammunition, loaded eight rounds into the gun, and Cardoza took possession of the ninth round.
- At about 2:00 a.m., Boston police officers in an unmarked vehicle observed Cardoza and Ragsdale behaving indecisively about crossing the street in a high-crime area.
- An officer who recognized Cardoza pulled alongside to ask him about a recent shooting.
- As officers exited the vehicle, they saw Ragsdale reach toward his waistband; an officer drew his weapon and ordered Ragsdale to stop.
- Police found a loaded handgun in Ragsdale’s waistband and a single ammunition cartridge in Cardoza’s hand.
- Cardoza was convicted of (1) felon in possession of ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (2) aiding and abetting a juvenile’s possession of a handgun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(x), and he appealed his convictions and sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied under the Commerce Clause where Cardoza possessed a single cartridge intrastate.
2. Whether a single cartridge or bullet constitutes “ammunition” within the meaning of § 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(A).
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(x) exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
4. Whether the police encounter and subsequent stop constituted an unlawful seizure requiring suppression of the handgun and ammunition.
5. Whether the district court committed reversible error in applying the Sentencing Guidelines.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed Cardoza’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held that § 922(g)(1) remained valid after Lopez and was constitutionally applied because the government proved the cartridge had moved in interstate commerce.
- The court held that a single bullet or cartridge qualifies as “ammunition” under the statutory definition.
- The court upheld § 922(x) as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause power.
- The court concluded the officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment and suppression was properly denied.
- The court rejected Cardoza’s sentencing challenges and affirmed the guideline determinations.

## Legal Principles

- For § 922(g)(1), a minimal interstate-commerce nexus is sufficient; proof that the firearm or ammunition previously traveled in interstate commerce satisfies the Commerce Clause.
- “Ammunition” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(A) includes “bullets” and related components in a generic sense; the definition covers a single round.
- Congress may regulate juvenile handgun possession and related transfers under § 922(x) when the statute is connected to interstate commerce and Congress could rationally find a substantial effect on the interstate firearms market.
- Police may approach individuals without a seizure; escalation to a stop and protective measures is permissible when reasonable suspicion and officer-safety concerns arise from observed conduct suggesting the presence of a weapon.
- Guideline determinations are upheld when supported by the record and the sentencing court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld federal firearms-related convictions where a felon possessed a single round of ammunition and assisted a juvenile’s handgun possession, ruling that the statutes were within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, the single round constituted “ammunition,” the stop and frisk-related measures were lawful, and the sentence was properly calculated.


United States v. Cardoza, 129 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1997)