Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dequincy Gerald TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-21
Citations: 95 F. App'x 118
Docket Number: No. 08-20957
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dequincy Gerald TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 118–118

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dequincy Gerald TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-20957.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Samy K. Khalil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dequincy Gerald Townsend appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Townsend argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is an unconstitutional infringement on his fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional on its face because the statute does not require a "substantial" effect on interstate commerce. Alternatively, he argues that there is an insufficient factual basis for a violation of this statute. Townsend concedes that various panels of this court have rejected his arguments, and he raises these issues only to preserve them for Supreme Court review.
A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel's decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir.1999). No such decision exists. Accordingly, Townsend's arguments are indeed foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee's brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee's brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.