Filed: Feb. 14, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-20380 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DON WHITEHEAD, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-380-ALL - Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Don Whitehead appeals his guilty-plea c
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-20380 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DON WHITEHEAD, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-380-ALL - Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Don Whitehead appeals his guilty-plea co..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20380
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DON WHITEHEAD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-380-ALL
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Don Whitehead appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Whitehead contends that § 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional on its face because it does not require a
substantial effect on interstate or foreign commerce.
Alternatively, he contends that the factual basis for his plea
was insufficient because the mere movement of a firearm from one
state or country to another at some undetermined time in the past
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-20380
-2-
does not constitute a substantial effect on interstate or foreign
commerce.
Whitehead 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. Guidry,
406 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 190 (2005); United States v. Daugherty,
264 F.3d 513,
518 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.