
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Ray TEAGLE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40476
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 26, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    John Riley Friesell, Bellaire, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Keith Ray Teagle appeals the 120-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony. Teagle argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by failing to adequately articulate its reasons for imposing a non-Guidelines sentence. He also contends that his sentence was unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Teagle fails to demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, with regard to the reasonableness of the non-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 434-36 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-10 (5th Cir.2006).

Teagle argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under § 922(g)(1) because there was no evidence that his possession of the firearms was in or affected interstate commerce. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in 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), but raises it for possible review by the United States Supreme Court.

Also, for the first time on appeal, Teagle argues that the district court erred by applying the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598 (5th Cir.2005), but raises it to preserve it for possible review with the United States Supreme Court.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     