*708 Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Danny Covington presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988), which held that a conviction under § 922(g) does not require proof that the defendant knew that the firearm in his possession had an interstate nexus and that he was a felon. In addition, Covington presents arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705-06 & n. 9 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1915, 176 L.Ed.2d 387 (2010), which held that Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not alter the proof required in a § 922(g)(1) case. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.