The Honor able Thoma s L
. Ludington, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District 1 of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0603n.06 F iled: October 7, 2008 No. 08-5166 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. EA RL M c BEE, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR TH E E A ST ER N DI STRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE MEMORAN DUM O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: SILE R, M c KEA G UE , a nd LU DI NG TON , C ir c uitJudg e s. 1 McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge
. Earl Mc Be e wa s arr ested a nd indicte d

f o r b e in g a felon in possession of firea rm s an d amm unition in vi olation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1) . He e ntere d a conditional g uilty plea, conting ent on the prese rvation of one issue for appea l. H e now a ppeals the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of

his mot ion

to d ism iss , c ha lle ng ingthe va lid ity of the statut e a s an e xer c ise of Cong ress’s Commerc e Clause powe r. Be cause this issue has alre ady been de finitively

resolved by the Supreme Court a

nd the Six th Circuit, we af firm the district cour

t’s order
. I. InFe b ru ary

2 0 0 0 , M cB ee wa s co n v i ct edi nT en n es s ee s t at e c o urt o f m an u f ac turi n g a controlled substanc e. The penalty for this crime e x cee ded one year .No. 08-5166

US v. M cBe e

- 2 - Of fi c e rs of the Gr a ing e r C ount

y S h e r i f f ’ s D e p a r t m e nt a rr e ste d M c B e e on

May 22 , 2 00 7 w hil e executing a

n arr est war

rant fo r aggr avate d assault. McB ee w as at his home whe n the offic ers
arr ived, and he did not object to being taken into custody . He told the arre sting off icer s that he had firea rms and ammunition in his house
. He consente d to a sear ch of his house , and t h e o ff icer s retrie ved a shotgun and a r ifle, as we ll as shotgun ammuniti on and rifle ammunition. McB ee sig ned a stateme nt saying he owned the f irea rms and ammunition. An expert from the B urea u of Alcohol, Toba cco, F irea rms, and Ex plosives determined that the fi re arm s and

ammunit ion wer e manu fa c tur e d o uts ide of Te nn e sse e . M c B e e sti pu late d to thi s fi n d i n g. McB ee e ntere d a co n d itional guilty plea of beinga fe lon in possession in vi olation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) befor e the district cour t. The plea was conditioned on the pre servation of the issue of “whether

proof that a

firea rm previously trave led at some time in interstate commer ce is suff icient to establish the commerc e clause j urisdictional nexus for a conviction t o be had under 18 U.S.C. § 922( g )
. ” ( M o t. to D is mi s s a t 1
. ) T h e d is tr ic t c o urt d e n ie d th e mo ti o nto d is mi s s , r e ly in g on Scarborough v. United States , 431 U.S. 563 (1977). McB ee timely appea led the district cour t order. II. Stare de c isi s c on tr ols thi s c a se . Pr e c e de nts in bo th the Sup re me Court and the Sixth C ir c uit direc tly addre ss the constitutionalit y of the fe lon-in-pos s essi on statute. McB ee a sserts that the direc tion of the Supreme Court’s Com merc e C lause jurisprudence indicates t hat t he Supreme Court
wo uld no t f ind the j uri sd ic tio na l ne xus su ff ic ie nt. Ho we ve r, thi s c ourt do e s n ot e ng a g e in speculation; we are bound by what the Supreme Court has said, not what it might say . “Unless a ndNo. 08-5166

US v. M cBe e

Scarborough involved an ea rlier ve rsion of the fe lon-in-possession statute, but there a re no 2 meaning ful differ ence s betwee n the curr ent version and the ear lier version at issue in Scarborough
. United States v. Chesne

y , 86 F.3d 564, 568- 69 (6th Cir. 1996).

- 3 - until the Supreme Court takes the ne x t step, we a re bound to f

ollow its curr ent statement of the law on this subject.” United States v. Be asley , 442 F.3d 386, 392 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 2006). In Scarborough , the Supreme Court he ld that the jurisdictional n ex u s i n the fe lon-inpossession statute require d only “that the f

irea rm have been, at some time, in int erstate commerc e.” 2 431 U.S. at 574. Scarborough fo un d th a t Co ngre ss i nte nd e d to e x ert its “ fu ll Co mme rc e Cla us e power ” and that “Cong ress intende d no more than a minimal nex us require ment.” Id. at 571, 577. Mc B e e argue s th a t Scarborough involved p u r e ly s tatutory interpre tation; neverthe less, Scarborough clea rly holds that a conviction under the felon-in- possession statute is justi fied if, a s it did here, the firea rm had pre viously

trave led in interstate c ommerce . Th e Sixth Cir c uit sq

ua re ly a dd re sse d th e c on sti tut ion a lity of the statut e inUnited States v. Chesney , 8 6 F .3 d 564 , 570 (6 th Cir . 199 6)
. I t hel d that th e fe lon -i n p os se ssi on statut e wa s w ith in th e s c o p e o f

Co n g r e s s ’ s Co mm e r c e Cl a u s e power . Id. Prior to Chesney , the Supreme Court ha d decide d United States v. Lopez , which struck down a st at u t e fo r exceedingthe scope of the Commerce Clause. 514 U.S. 549, 567 (1996). Chesney applied the Lop e z analy sis to the felon-inpo sse ssi on

statut e and

he ld t hat the ju ri sd ictiona l ne xus o f t he statut e pla c e d th e statut e sq ua re ly within Congre ss’s Commerce Clause power s. 86 F.3d at 570. I t f ound that the nexus connected the statut e to t

he re g ulatio n o f c omm e rc e and e ns ur e d a c a se -b y -c a se ana ly sis of the c onne c tio n toNo. 08-5166

US v. M cBe e

- 4 - interstate c ommerce . Id. The Chesney court also noted t hat “the First, S econd, Third, Four th, Six th, Seventh, Eig hth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleve nth Circuits” had all re ache d the same r esult. Id. McB ee can point t o no case which ca lls int o question the authority of either Scarborough or Chesney . Instead, he cites a series of case s in which other c ircuits note that, whate ver the ir views
o nth e s t a tu t e , th e y r e m a i nb o un d b y Scarborough
. See, e .g. , United States v. Patton , 451 F.3d 615, 63 4 ( 10 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. W eem s , 3 22 F .3 d 18, 26 (1s t Ci r. 20 03 ); United States v. Lemons , 302 F .3 d 769 , 7 73 (7 th C ir . 2 00 2) ; United States v. Cortes , 2 99 F .3 d 1 03 0, 10 37 n. 2 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 2) ; United States v. She lton , 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). These c ases–a nd many others–af

firm the constitutionality o f the fe lon-in-possession statute and the c ontinuing authority of Scarborough . We thus join the chorus of circ uits re aff irming the prec edential f

orce of Scarborough and so AF F IRM the district court orde r.