Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0427-01.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. Paul Wayne HOLT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-11176.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
    Michael Gill, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Paul Wayne Holt appeals following his guilty plea to using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) & (B), and to unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The Government argues that we lack appellate jurisdiction because Holt’s notice of appeal failed to designate the final judgment as the order being appealed. We conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction. See United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 949-50 (5th Cir.1994).

Holt argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea was insufficient to support the interstate commerce element of the felon-in-possession offense because the parties stipulated only that the firearms had previously been shipped and transported in interstate commerce at some unspecified date. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent and states that he raises the claim to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Holt’s claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712-13 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 910, 123 S.Ct. 253, 154 L.Ed.2d 189 (2002); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 & n. 12 (5th Cir.2001).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.