Brent Battin appeals following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that his prior Texas state conviction for felony evading arrest was not a qualifying predicate offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Although he acknowledges that the offense was a state jail felony, he argues that his plea agreement provided that he would be sentenced in accordance with Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.44(a), which allows punishment as if the crime were a Class A misdemeanor subject to a maximum one-year sentence. We have previously rejected a nearly identical argument. United States v. Rivera-Perez, 322 F.3d 350, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2003). Battin correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed, and he states that he raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review.

Battin also argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because the statute does not require a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce and it exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. Battin’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is also foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). Battin concedes as much and indicates that he raises this issue also to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.