United States v. Benton

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 00-4864 LEGRAND QUINTON BENTON, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (CR-00-176-BM) Submitted: June 5, 2001 Decided: August 3, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Scott N. Schools, United States Attor- ney, Eric William Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Colum- bia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 UNITED STATES v. BENTON OPINION PER CURIAM: In 1982, LeGrand Quinton Benton divorced his wife. The Richland County Family Court of Columbia, South Carolina, issued a divorce decree requiring Benton to pay $200 per month in child support and one-half of all reasonable expenses for a college education for Ben- ton’s son, Craig Benton. Benton relocated to North Carolina and failed to make child support payments or contribute to his son’s col- lege education. On November 6, 2000, Benton plead guilty to misde- meanor failure to pay child support, in violation of the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 228 (West 2000) ("CSRA"), and was sentenced to five years probation and ordered to pay $23,528 in resti- tution. On appeal, Benton argues Congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause in passing the CSRA. We dis- agree. A panel of this court has authoritatively determined that the CSRA is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to regulate things in interstate commerce. United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476, 480 (4th Cir. 1997); see Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150 (1971). Only the en banc court or the Supreme Court can overrule a decision of a panel of this court. Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d 900, 905 (4th Cir. 1996). The en banc court has not addressed the constitutionality of the CSRA, and we conclude that the holding and analysis of Johnson are unaltered by United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 617 (2000), because Morrison did not alter Commerce Clause jurisprudence regulating items in interstate com- merce. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 609. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi- als before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional pro- cess. AFFIRMED