UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aaron BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant, 707 F. App'x 300

PER CURIAM: Aaron Beasley pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and he received a sentence of 57 months in prison, to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Beasley asserts that the district court erred in the sentencing calculations because his prior Texas convictions for aggravated robbery did not constitute the enumerated offense of “robbery” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. As he concedes, however, his claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v.

Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). In addition, Beasley argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it is not necessary to prove that his possession of the firearm was in or affected interstate commerce. In support of his assertion, he relies on Nat'l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012). However, he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed. See United States v.

Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 143-46 (5th Cir. 2013). In his final ground for relief, Beasley cites to Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), to support his proposition that his convictions may not stand because the indictment did not allege and Beasley did not admit that he knew his possession of the firearms was in or affected interstate commerce. A conviction under § 922(g)(1) requires proof that the defendant knew he possessed the firearm but does not require knowledge of the interstate nexus. United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988).

In United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705 (5th Cir. 2009), this court held that Dancy remained good law even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Flores-Figueroa, which addressed the mens rea element of a different statute. Accordingly, as Beasley concedes, his argument is foreclosed. In light of the foregoing, Beasley’s motion for

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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.