15, 2003, a jury convicted Leathers on both of the charges and the District Court sentenced him under § 922(e)(1) to concurrent prison terms of 327 months on each count. I. Leathers’s first claim is that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) as applied to him is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because his possession of a firearm and ammunition did not have a significant impact on interstate commerce. Recognizing this Circuit’s long-standing precedent to the contrary, Leathers nevertheless argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000), implicitly overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977) (<HOLDING>) and requires us to revisit the issue. We
holding that the feloninpossessionofafirearm statute only requires a showing that the firearm at one time traveled through interstate commerce 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 recognizing scarborough holding that commerce nexus satisfied upon showing that possessed firearm had traveled at some time in 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 that the connection between the robbery and interstate commerce was much more direct than in wang because at the time of the robbery the victim in walker was selling illegal drugs that had traveled through interstate commerce