Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0510-01.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. Jeffrey Louis BERMEA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40083.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 23, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Jason Bradford Libby, Aurora Ruth Bearse, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Louis Bermea appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Bermea argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is an unconstitutional infringement on his fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He also argues that the statute is unconstitutional on its face because it does not require a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Alternatively, he argues that there is an insufficient factual basis for a violation of this statute. Bermea concedes that this court has rejected his arguments. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001). He raises these issues only to preserve them for further review.

A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir.1999). No such decision exists. Accordingly, Bermea’s argument is indeed foreclosed. 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.