Case ID: f-appx_95/html/0604-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John David STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-40438.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 21, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

John David Stevenson was found guilty following a bench trial of possessing in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana -with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Stevenson urges this court to reconsider the constitutionality of suspicionless roadblock stops in light of Justice Thomas’s dissent in City of Indianappolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 56, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). He also argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841 was rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Stevenson concedes that his arguments are foreclosed, and he raises the issues only to preserve them for possible further review.

A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir.1999). No such decision exists. Accordingly, Stevenson’s arguments are indeed foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.