Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne SHEPHERD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 87 F. App'x 978
Docket Number: No. 02-21342
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne SHEPHERD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 978–978

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne SHEPHERD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-21342.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Shepherd appeals from a bench-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 942(a). Shepherd argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an overly broad assertion of Commerce Clause power that unconstitutionally burdens the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Shepherd further argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Equal Protection Clause. Shepherd's arguments are foreclosed by this court's holding in United States v. Darrington, 351 F.3d 632 (5th Cir.2003).
Shepherd also challenges his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction as a violation of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. He argues that the Government did not produce evidence that the firearm was in or substantially affected interstate commerce. Shepherd concedes that these arguments are foreclosed by this court's holding in United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 & n. 12 (5th Cir.2001), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.