United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 4, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-11140
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICE TYRONE THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CR-41-1-D
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maurice Tyrone Thomas appeals from his jury-verdict
conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district
court improperly permitted testimony from a lay witness to
establish the interstate nexus element of his crime. Examination
of the record indicates that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting such testimony on this basis. See United
States v. Merritt, 882 F.2d 916, 919-20 (5th Cir. 1989).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-11140
-2-
Thomas argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction because the mere movement of a firearm
from one state to another does not constitute a “substantial”
effect on interstate commerce; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it does not
require a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce; and
(3) his indictment was fatally defective because it did not
allege that he knew that the firearm he possessed was in or
affecting interstate commerce. Thomas raises these 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. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,
518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002); United
States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.