Felix Alfonso Guerra appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Guerra argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the mere movement of a firearm from one state to another does not constitute a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce; and (2) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it does not require a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce. Guerra raises these arguments solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2001).

Guerra also contends that a conflict exists between the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment because the written judgment contains a condition of supervised release prohibiting the possession of a dangerous weapon but, at the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention this prohibition. For the reasons set forth in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935-38 (5th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court’s omission of the dangerous-weapon prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.