Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo HINOJOSA-AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-21
Citations: 95 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 03-40559
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo HINOJOSA-AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 640–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo HINOJOSA-AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40559.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
DECIDED: April 21, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Katherine L. Haden, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Reynaldo Hinojosa-Aguirre appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 3,4-Methylenedioxy Methamphetmine. Hinojosa-Aguirre argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b) were rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Hinojosa-Aguirre 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 that statute. 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, Hinojosa-Aguirre's argument is foreclosed.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.