Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 87 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 03-41127
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 418–418

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41127.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Tim S. Braley, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public, Defender, Darrell L. Bryan, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jose Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for importing 35.34 kilograms of cocaine. He argues: (1) that the district court erred when it denied a reduction in his total offense level based on his minor role in the offense and (2) that 21 U.S.C. § 841, 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Lopez concedes that his second argument is foreclosed but nevertheless raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review.
The large quantity of cocaine that Lopez was transporting supports the denial of a minor participant reduction despite Lopez's claim that he was only a courier. See United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1409-10 (5th Cir.1989). The district court therefore did not clearly err in determining that Lopez was not entitled to a minor role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). See United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir.1994).
Lopez's argument regarding the constitutionality of the statutes of conviction is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000).
The judgment of the district court is therefore 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.