IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21138
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE RAYMOND FAULKNER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-710-ALL
--------------------
August 20, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe Raymond Faulkner, Jr., appeals his conviction and
sentence after his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a
firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). Faulkner’s challenges to his conviction are based on
the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the sufficiency of
the indictment, and the sufficiency of the factual basis for the
plea. Faulkner concedes, however, that these arguments are
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21138
-2-
foreclosed and that they are being raised to preserve them for
possible further review. Faulkner’s arguments challenging his
conviction are indeed foreclosed. See United States v.
Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122
S. Ct. 1113 (2002); United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-
65 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th
Cir. 1996); and United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th
Cir. 1996).
Faulkner also challenges his sentence on the ground that the
district court impermissibly delegated its payment-setting
authority to the Probation Office. Faulkner did not object to
the cost-payment conditions at sentencing; accordingly, we review
the claim for plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37
F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Faulkner has failed
to establish plain error. See United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d
363 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Faulkner’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.