Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0685-01.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. Chevis Alleon HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-11206
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 21, 2011.
    Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, William Reynolds Biggs, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Chevis Alleon Hall presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir.1988), which held that a conviction under § 922(g) does not require proof that the defendant knew that the firearm in his possession had an interstate nexus and that he was a felon. In addition, Hall presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705-06 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1915, 176 L.Ed.2d 387 (2010), which held that Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) did not alter the proof required in a § 922(g)(1) case. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.