IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10651

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTHONY EUDEAN WOOLLIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-105-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Eudean Woollis appeals his conviction for production of child 

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). He asserts that § 2251(a) 

should be construed to require that the offense caused the materials to move 

in interstate commerce or, at least, that the materials did so in the recent past. 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 

844 (2014), Woollis contends that a conviction in the absence of such proof 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10651 Document: 00514756723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2018
No. 18-10651

2

impermissibly intrudes upon the police power of the States. Because Woollis 

did not admit to these facts, he contends the factual basis for his plea is 

insufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. 

Plain error review applies to Woollis’s forfeited objection to the factual 

basis for his guilty plea. See United States v. Trejo, 601 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 

2010). We have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to 

prohibit local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials 

used in the production were moved in interstate commerce. See United States 

v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kallestad, 236 

F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court’s decision in Bond did 

not abrogate the holding of these cases. See United States v. McCall, 833 F.3d 

560, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016). As Woollis concedes, he cannot show any error in 

the district court’s finding that there was a sufficient factual basis for his guilty 

plea in light of this case law. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135

(2009). He raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

Alternatively, Woollis asserts that Dickson and Kallestad were wrongly 

decided in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 

567 U.S. 519 (2012), and that the Commerce Clause does not authorize 

Congress to impose federal criminal liability where the defendant’s conduct is 

tenuously related to interstate commerce. Under the rule of orderliness, “we 

are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent because the Supreme

Court’s decision in National Federation did not overrule it.” United States v. 

Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, we are bound by 

Kallestad and Dickson, which render Woollis’s arguments unavailing. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

motions for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to 

file an appellate brief, are DENIED.

 Case: 18-10651 Document: 00514756723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2018