
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chansavath THIPPRACHACK, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-10025 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/28/2016
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Chansavath Thipprachack challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting his guilty plea to the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in McFadden v. United States, 567 U.S. 519, 135 S.Ct. 2298, 192 L.Ed.2d 260 (2015), calls into question our holding in United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988), that the offense does not require knowledge of a firearm’s interstate nexus. Relying on Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), Thipprachack additionally contends that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause.

Because McFadden does not unequivocally direct this court to overrule Dancy, “we are not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent.” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, as Thipprachack concedes, his Commerce Clause argument is foreclosed by Alcantar, which rejected a similar challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 145-46.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     