United States v. Jackson, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20777
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CR-33
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Jackson appeals his guilty plea conviction for being
a felon in possession of a firearm. Jackson argues that his
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) violated both the Commerce
Clause and the Tenth Amendment because there was no evidence
showing that the firearm was in or substantially affected
interstate commerce. Jackson concedes that various panels of
this court have rejected his argument. See, e.g., United States

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-20777
-2-
v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). He raises the
issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s
decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding
decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States
Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466
(5th Cir. 1999). No such decision exists. Accordingly,
Jackson’s argument is indeed foreclosed. The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of
filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks
that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

-- 2 of 2 --