PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Verod Woodard pleaded guilty to one count of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and received a sentence of 283 months in prison, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The underlying “crime of violence” was carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. On appeal, Woodard contends that the enactment of § 2119 exceeded Congress’s authority under *2 Case: 17-10097 Document: 00514133158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2017

No. 17-10097

the Commerce Clause. In United States v. Coleman , 78 F.3d 154, 158-59 (5th Cir. 1996), this court rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the carjacking statute. Woodard concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Coleman , although he contends that the holding has been called into question by the Supreme Court’s decision in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519 (2012). As that case did not address the constitutionality of § 2119, we are bound by our decision in Coleman . See United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013).

In addition, Woodard asserts that the firearm conviction was invalid because carjacking no longer qualifies as a “crime of violence” in light of Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). As he concedes, his argument that the ruling in Johnson renders § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria , 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). See United States v. Jones , 854 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 2017), petition for cert. filed (July 17, 2017) (No. 17-5285). Although in Lynch v. Dimaya , 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016), the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson , we are bound by our own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. See Wicker v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, Woodard’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.