Travis Tillis appeals his conviction following a guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Tillis argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power because the regulated activity does not substantially affect inter *401 state commerce. Alternatively, he argues that his indictment was defective for failing to allege that his specific offense substantially affected interstate commerce and that the factual basis for his plea was insufficient because the evidence established only that the firearm had traveled across state lines at some unspecified point in the past.

Tillis raises his arguments solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. See 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. Fitzhugh, 984 F.2d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.