Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon GUERRERO-TEJADA, also known as Ramon Guerrero-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 489
Docket Number: No. 06-40011
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon GUERRERO-TEJADA, also known as Ramon Guerrero-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 489–489

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon GUERRERO-TEJADA, also known as Ramon Guerrero-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40011.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ramon Guerrero-Tejada (Guerrero) pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 262.1 kilograms of marijuana and was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment, four years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
Guerrero contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Guerrero acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court's precedent, United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.
Guerrero's argument is foreclosed. Slaughter, 238 F.3d at 582; see United States v. Fort, 248 F.3d 475, 482-83 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.