United States v. Tillis

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Tillis

71 F. App'x 400

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 19, 2003

Docket02-21022

StatusUnpublished

This text of 71 F. App'x 400 (United States v. Tillis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Tillis, 71 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Travis Tillis appeals his conviction following a guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Tillis argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power because the regulated activity does not substantially affect inter *401 state commerce. Alternatively, he argues that his indictment was defective for failing to allege that his specific offense substantially affected interstate commerce and that the factual basis for his plea was insufficient because the evidence established only that the firearm had traveled across state lines at some unspecified point in the past.

Tillis raises his arguments solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150, 122 S.Ct. 1113, 151 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2002); United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Fitzhugh, 984 F.2d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *401 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

Travis Tillis appeals his conviction following a guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Tillis argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power because the regulated activity does not substantially affect inter *401 state commerce. Alternatively, he argues that his indictment was defective for failing to allege that his specific offense substantially affected interstate commerce and that the factual basis for his plea was insufficient because the evidence established only that the firearm had traveled across state lines at some unspecified point in the past.

Tillis raises his arguments solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150, 122 S.Ct. 1113, 151 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2002); United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Fitzhugh, 984 F.2d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *401 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. App'x 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tillis-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack