Case ID: f-appx_15/html/0145-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Legrand Quinton BENTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4864.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 3, 2001.
    Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, SC, for appellant. Scott N. Schools, United States Attorney, Eric William Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In 1982, LeGrand Quinton Benton divorced his wife. The Richland County Family Court of Columbia, South Carolina, issued a divorce decree requiring Benton to pay $200 per month in child support and one-half of all reasonable expenses for a college education for Benton’s son, Craig Benton. Benton relocated to North Carolina and failed to make child support payments or contribute to his son’s college education. On November 6, 2000, Benton plead guilty to misdemeanor failure to pay child support, in violation of the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 228 (West 2000) (“CSRA”), and was sentenced to five years probation and ordered to pay $23,528 in restitution. On appeal, Benton argues Congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause in passing the CSRA. We disagree.

A panel of this court has authoritatively determined that the CSRA is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to regulate things in interstate commerce. United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476, 480 (4th Cir.1997); see Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971). Only the en banc court or the Supreme Court can overrule a decision of a panel of this court. Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d 900, 905 (4th Cir.1996). The en banc court has not addressed the constitutionality of the CSRA, and we conclude that the holding and analysis of Johnson are unaltered by United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 617, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000), because Morrison did not alter Commerce Clause jurisprudence regulating items in interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 609.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.