United States v. Teagle , 220 F. App'x 267 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40476
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEITH RAY TEAGLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-5-ALL
--------------------
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
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40476
-2-
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 122 S. Ct. 1113 (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.