Case ID: f-appx_267/html/0316-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kermit H. POWDRILL, II, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10296
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 20, 2008.
    Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kermit H. Powdrill, II, appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and receipt of a firearm while under felony indictment. Powdrill argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for leave to file an out-of-time pretrial motion challenging his indictment. Powdrill sought to present arguments that are foreclosed under the law of this circuit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Powdrill’s motion. See United States v. Knezek, 964 F.2d 394, 397 (5th Cir.1992).

Powdrill also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because the statute does not require a substantial effect on interstate commerce and it exceeds Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. Powdrill’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001). Powdrill concedes as much but raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.