United States v. Davis , 110 F. App'x 456 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20163
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAXTON TROY DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CR-198-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paxton Troy Davis appeals from his guilty-plea conviction
for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Davis argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
not narrowly tailored in light of the interplay of the Second
Amendment and the regulation of interstate commerce under the
Commerce Clause, is overly broad in its reach given the
legislative history of its intent, and unevenly burdens a
fundamental right in violation of equal protection by relying on
inconsistent state law definitions. He acknowledges that the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-20163
-2-
foregoing arguments are foreclosed by this court’s decision in
United States v. Darrington, 351 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2429 (2004), but has raised the
issue to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court.
Davis also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an
unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power
because the regulated activity does not substantially affect
interstate commerce. Alternatively, he argues that the factual
basis for his plea was insufficient because the evidence
established only that the firearm had traveled across state lines
at some unspecified point in the past. Davis raises these
arguments solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court
review. As he acknowledges, they are foreclosed by existing
Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264
F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.