IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20465
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL MURRAY MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-632-1
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Murray Miller appeals his guilty plea conviction and
sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Relying on
the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S.
848 (2000); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); and
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Miller argues that
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20465
-2-
does not require a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce.
In the alternative, Miller argues that if 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
is interpreted as implicitly requiring a “substantial” effect on
interstate commerce, his indictment and the factual basis
supporting his guilty plea are insufficient.
Miller raises his arguments solely to preserve them for
possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments
are foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United
States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
123 S. Ct. 253 (2002); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,
518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (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); United States
v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, 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.