omitted); see also United States v. Forrest, 429 F.3d 73, 79 (4th Cir.2005) (applying Raich and holding that the defendant’s “constitutional challenge, which rests entirely on the asserted de minimis economic effect of his own activities, must fail”) (internal citation omitted). Finally, we observe that if the cockfighting activities in which Gibert participated were wholly an intrastate activity, the government would be unable to establish one of the elements of the offense, namely, that the event be “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” 7 U.S.C. § 2156(g)(1). However, by his guilty plea to the offense, Gibert acknowledged that the government could prove that the event “was in or affecting interstate commerce.” See United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S.
holding that guilty plea admits all elements of offense holding that the voluntary entry of an informed and counseled guilty plea constitutes an admission of all facts necessary to convict holding that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant holding that due process requires state courts to make an affirmative showing that a guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary