UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5183
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLINTON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00035-LHT-1)
Submitted: January 12, 2010 Decided: February 8, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United
States Attorney, Cortney Escaravage, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clinton Williams appeals his conviction under 18
U.S.C.A. § 2251(a) (West Supp. 2009) for sexual exploitation of
a minor for the purpose of producing a physical depiction.
Williams raises only one issue on appeal: whether the district
court correctly concluded that the statute’s application to
purely intrastate production of child pornography was within
Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
Williams’ argument that the lower court erred is
clearly foreclosed by this Circuit’s precedent. United
States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 180 (4th Cir.), petition for
cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3271 (S. Ct. 2009) (No. 09-523); United
States v. Forrest, 429 F.3d 73, 78 (4th Cir. 2005). Further, we
lack authority to reconsider this court’s prior decisions. “[A]
panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly,
the precedent set by a prior panel of this court. Only the
Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc can do that.”
Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n.2
(4th. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ conviction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2