United States of America v. Wade Lawrence Duchaine

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2297
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Wade Lawrence Duchaine
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: March 7, 2022
Filed: March 10, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Wade Duchaine appeals the judgment entered by district court1 after he was
found guilty by a jury of committing a firearm offense. He argues that 18 U.S.C.
1The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District
of North Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him because his possession of the firearm
was not in or affecting commerce, and thus section 922(g)(1) exceeds the power
granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause, and violates the Tenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution.
Duchaine’s argument is squarely foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See
United States v. Anderson, 771 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2014) (“[I]t is a cardinal
rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.” (quoting
United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 823–24 (8th Cir. 2008))); United States v.
Joos, 638 F.3d 581, 586 (8th Cir. 2011) (it is well settled that Congress did not
exceed its authority under Commerce Clause when enacting § 922(g); defendant’s
arguments to the contrary are foreclosed by this court’s prior decisions); United States
v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1104 (8th Cir. 1996) (rejecting Commerce Clause challenge
to § 922(g), explaining that to satisfy interstate commerce element of § 922(g), it is
sufficient that there exists minimal nexus that firearms have been--at some time--in
interstate commerce).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --