PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4023

RALPH HOWARD RICH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-01-319)

Argued: June 5, 2003

Decided: July 15, 2003

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WIDENER, Circuit Judge,

and Robert R. BEEZER, Senior Circuit Judge of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,

sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Amy Leigh Austin, Assistant Federal Public Defender,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael James Elston, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON

BRIEF: Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Sara
E. Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,

for Appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Defendant Ralph Howard Rich was indicted in the Eastern District

of Virginia for willfully and unlawfully failing to pay court-ordered

child support for more than two years and in an amount greater than

$10,000 in violation of the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 228, as amended by the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, 18

U.S.C. § 228(a)(3) (Supp. 1999). The defendant moved to dismiss the

indictment on the ground that 18 U.S.C. § 228 was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. The district

court denied the motion, reasoning that it was bound by the Fourth

Circuit decision of United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476, 480 (4th

Cir. 1997), in which this court held that the Child Support Recovery

Act is a proper exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power

because a state child support order is a "thing in interstate commerce"

when the obligated parent and dependent child reside in different

states. Following this denial, the defendant entered into a plea agreement under which he was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. 

On appeal, the defendant has asked us to reconsider our opinion in

Johnson in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in United

States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and United States v. Jones,

529 U.S. 848 (2000). Because we do not construe Morrison or Jones

to establish a change in the law that requires us to overrule the previous decision of another panel of this court, we decline to reconsider

our decision in Johnson. See United States v. Najjar, 300 F.3d 466,

486 n.8 (4th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

2 UNITED STATES v. RICH
PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4023

RALPH HOWARD RICH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-01-319)

Argued: June 5, 2003

Decided: July 15, 2003

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WIDENER, Circuit Judge,

and Robert R. BEEZER, Senior Circuit Judge of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,

sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Amy Leigh Austin, Assistant Federal Public Defender,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael James Elston, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON

BRIEF: Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Sara
E. Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,

for Appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Defendant Ralph Howard Rich was indicted in the Eastern District

of Virginia for willfully and unlawfully failing to pay court-ordered

child support for more than two years and in an amount greater than

$10,000 in violation of the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 228, as amended by the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, 18

U.S.C. § 228(a)(3) (Supp. 1999). The defendant moved to dismiss the

indictment on the ground that 18 U.S.C. § 228 was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. The district

court denied the motion, reasoning that it was bound by the Fourth

Circuit decision of United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476, 480 (4th

Cir. 1997), in which this court held that the Child Support Recovery

Act is a proper exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power

because a state child support order is a "thing in interstate commerce"

when the obligated parent and dependent child reside in different

states. Following this denial, the defendant entered into a plea agreement under which he was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. 

On appeal, the defendant has asked us to reconsider our opinion in

Johnson in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in United

States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and United States v. Jones,

529 U.S. 848 (2000). Because we do not construe Morrison or Jones

to establish a change in the law that requires us to overrule the previous decision of another panel of this court, we decline to reconsider

our decision in Johnson. See United States v. Najjar, 300 F.3d 466,

486 n.8 (4th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

2 UNITED STATES v. RICH