and Firearms (“A.T.F.”) or the U.S. Attorney’s office to inform either office that McAllister had never possessed the gun. II. Because McAllister raises the constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal, we must determine whether he has waived his claim. As a general rule, this court will not address an issue not decided by the district court. Application of this rule, however, is at the discretion of the appellate court. See Lattimore v. Oman Constr., 868 F.2d 437 (11th Cir.1989) (discretion to review pure question of law or to avoid miscarriage of justice). At the time of McAllister’s trial, the Supreme Court had not yet decided Lopez. In light of the Supreme Court’s prior decision, Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1969, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977) (<HOLDING>), and of this court’s decision in United States
recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding  922g is not unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who possessed a firearm only intrastate when the government demonstrated that the firearm moved in interstate commerce holding in the context of the predecessor statute to  922g that the interstate commerce element is met by demonstrating a minimal nexus holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce holding after lopez that the interstate nexus element of the hobbs act still requires the government to show only a minimal connection to interstate commerce