Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Danny COVINGTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-21
Citations: 446 F. App'x 707
Docket Number: No. 11-10074
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Danny COVINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Danny COVINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10074
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2011.
Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Douglas Anthony Morris, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Danny Covington presents arguments that he concedes 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 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 in his possession had an interstate nexus and that he was a felon. In addition, Covington presents arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705-06 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1915, 176 L.Ed.2d 387 (2010), which held that Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not alter the proof required in a § 922(g)(1) case. Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.