United States v. Francisco Romero , 705 F. App'x 319 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-51470      Document: 00514262920         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/06/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 16-51470
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                       December 6, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                       Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    FRANCISCO ROMERO,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:15-CR-497-1
    Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Francisco Romero appeals his conviction for production of child
    pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). According to Romero, his
    conviction violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because the
    alleged production of child pornography was purely intrastate and non-
    economic. In advancing this argument, Romero acknowledges that this court
    previously has rejected similar Commerce Clause arguments, see United States
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 16-51470     Document: 00514262920     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/06/2017
    No. 16-51470
    v. Kallestad, 
    236 F.3d 225
    , 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000) and United States v. Dickson,
    
    632 F.3d 186
    , 192 (5th Cir. 2011), but he contends that this court’s prior rulings
    do not govern here, particularly in light of Bond v. United States, 
    134 S. Ct. 2077
    , 2086 (2014) and Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 
    567 U.S. 519
    , 550
    (2012) (National Federation).
    We review the constitutional challenge de novo. 
    Kallestad, 236 F.3d at 227
    . We have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to prohibit
    local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials used in
    the production were moved in interstate commerce. 
    Dickson, 632 F.3d at 192
    ;
    
    Kallestad, 236 F.3d at 226-31
    . The Supreme Court’s decision in Bond did not
    abrogate the holdings of these cases. See United States v. McCall, 
    833 F.3d 560
    , 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016). Likewise, under the rule of orderliness, “we are
    not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent because the Supreme Court’s
    decision in National Federation did not overrule it.” United States v. Alcantar,
    
    733 F.3d 143
    , 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, we are bound by Kallestad and
    Dickson, which render Romero’s arguments unavailing.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-51470

Citation Numbers: 705 F. App'x 319

Filed Date: 12/6/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023