Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pascual Samuel GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-03
Citations: 250 F. App'x 18
Docket Number: No. 07-10533
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pascual Samuel GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 18–18

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pascual Samuel GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10533
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 3, 2007.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Pascual Samuel Guerrero presents arguments that 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 by 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 had an interstate nexus or that he was a felon. Guerrero also raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Schmidt, 487 F.3d 253, 254-55 (5th Cir.2007), which rejected challenges based on Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994), and Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998), to the validity of Dancy. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under dle limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.