Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kermit H. POWDRILL, II, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-20
Citations: 267 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 07-10296
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kermit H. POWDRILL, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kermit H. POWDRILL, II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10296
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 2008.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kermit H. Powdrill, II, appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and receipt of a firearm while under felony indictment. Powdrill argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for leave to file an out-of-time pretrial motion challenging his indictment. Powdrill sought to present arguments that are foreclosed under the law of this circuit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Powdrill's motion. See United States v. Knezek, 964 F.2d 394, 397 (5th Cir.1992).
Powdrill also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because the statute does not require a substantial effect on interstate commerce and it exceeds Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. Powdrill's challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). Powdrill concedes as much but raises the issue to preserve it for further review.
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.