the Supreme Court upheld the application of certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. See generally 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122. These provisions established an allotment of a certain number of acres for the Filburn’s wheat crop that year; however, Filburn grew more wheat than he was supposed to, intending to use the excess for his own consumption on the farm. Id. at 115-17, 63 S.Ct. 82. The Court held that "Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown if wholly outside the scheme of regulation would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices." Id. at 128-29, 63 S.Ct. 82. 8 . United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210, 1217-19 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1285
holding section 2252a5b constitutional as applied to defendants intrastate possession of child pornography after the supreme court remanded the eleventh circuits prior holding for reconsideration in light of raich holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding that even a remand by the supreme court for reconsideration in light of an intervening court opinion does not require the court to consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari recognizing continuing harm from defendants knowing possession of child pornography