United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20441
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TYRONE SCOTT HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-421-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tyrone Scott Harris appeals from his guilty-plea conviction
for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Harris argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
not narrowly tailored in light of the interplay of the Second
Amendment and the regulation of interstate commerce under the
Commerce Clause, is overly broad in its reach given the
legislative history of its intent, and unevenly burdens a
fundamental right in violation of equal protection by relying on
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20441
-2-
inconsistent state law definitions. He acknowledges that the
foregoing arguments are foreclosed by this court’s recent
decision in United States v. Darrington, ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-
20052, 2003 WL 22706079, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov 18, 2003). We note,
however, that Harris has preserved the issues for review by the
Supreme Court.
Harris also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an
unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power
because the regulated activity does not substantially affect
interstate commerce. Alternatively, he argues that the factual
basis for his plea was insufficient because the evidence
established only that the firearm had traveled across state lines
at some unspecified point in the past. Harris raises these
arguments solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court
review. As he acknowledges, they are foreclosed by existing
Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264
F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001).
Finally, Harris argues that the district court erred at
sentencing by accepting the probation officer’s report without
requiring the Government to offer evidence to rebut Harris’s
objections to the report. Harris concedes that he offered no
evidence in support of his objections and that this issue is also
foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v.
Peters, 283 F.3d 300, 314 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 934
(2002).
No. 03-20441
-3-
AFFIRMED.