Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40888/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40888-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reynaldo Quiroz-Escobedo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40888

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REYNALDO QUIROZ-ESCOBEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-123-1

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Quiroz-Escobedo appeals his guilty plea conviction

for importation of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. 

Quiroz-Escobedo argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 were

rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Quiroz-Escobedo concedes that his argument

is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter, 238

F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000), which rejected a broad

Apprendi-based attack on the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.

 Case: 03-40888 Document: 0051237959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-40888

-2-

§ 841. He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court

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 overruling Slaughter exists. 

Accordingly, Quiroz-Escobedo’s argument is 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. 

 Case: 03-40888 Document: 0051237959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004