
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul James SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-20479.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, Tony Ray Roberts, US Attorney’s Office, McAllen, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Paul James Sanders appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1). Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000); and United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), Sanders argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) can no longer constitutionally be construed to cover the intrastate possession of a firearm merely due to the fact that it traveled across state lines at some point in the past. Accordingly, Sanders argues that the evidence, which stipulated that the firearm he possessed in Texas was manufactured in California, was insufficient to establish the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and thus insufficient to support his conviction.

Sanders raises his argument solely to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 910, 123 S.Ct. 253, 154 L.Ed.2d 189 (2002); 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. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir.1996).

Because the argument is foreclosed, the Government has moved for a summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment. The motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED. 
      
       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.
     