Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor PRADO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-18
Citations: 105 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 04-40251
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor PRADO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 105
Pages: 631–631

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor PRADO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40251.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
Mitchel Neurock, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Cesar A. Amador, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Victor Prado-Martinez (Prado) appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. Prado contends for the first time on appeal that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b) are facially unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Prado acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580 (5th Cir.2000), but he seeks to preserve his argument for further review.
In Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, the Supreme Court held that "[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." This court has rejected the argument that Apprendi rendered the sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841 facially unconstitutional. See Slaughter, 238 F.3d at 582. As Prado concedes, the court's opinion in Slaughter forecloses his argument. See id.
The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.