USA v. Powdrill
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
No. 07-10296 Conference Calendar
February 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. KERMIT H POWDRILL, II Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-43-ALL
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 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.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
No. 07-10296 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?