that issued the underlying protective order lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 389 F.3d at 534. The Fifth Circuit, relying on Lewis, affirmed Hick’s conviction upon determining that “nothing in the language of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) indicates that it applies only to persons subject to a valid, as opposed to an invalid, protective order.” Id. at 535 (emphasis in original). The court then pointed out that “[i]f Hicks truly believed that [the order] was invalid, he should have objected to the [county courtj’s subject-matter jurisdiction at the original court hearing, appealed the order for lack of jurisdiction, or sought a writ of mandamus from the local appellate court before possessing either firearms or ammunition.” Id. at 536 (emphasis in original); accord Young, 458 F.3d at 1005 (<HOLDING>); Wescott, 576 F.3d at 353 (determining that,
holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms of the lease holding that although miranda warnings were not given to defendant police officers they had no cause of action under 42 usc  1983 because they were never prosecuted holding that defendants prosecuted under section 922g8 may only attack the validity of the underlying protective order on the grounds that they were not provided a hearing of which they were given actual notice and an opportunity to participate holding defendants were properly joined because they are alleged to have participated in the underlying conspiracy holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search