Louis Lavaris, Jr., appeals his conviction and the 96-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of a fee-arm by a convicted felon. He asserts that the Government failed to state a federal offense in his indictment because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face in that the element “in or affecting commerce” cannot be satisfied merely by the possession of a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce at some point in time.

As Lavaris concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2001), in which we held that “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question,” id. at 518 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 319-22 (5th Cir. 1999), in which we concluded that § 922(j) was similar to § 922(g) and the phrase “shipped or transported in, interstate or foreign commerce,” provided “the requisite nexus to commerce” to allow Congress to exercise its powers under the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, Lavaris’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED and the' judgment is AFFIRMED.