Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino Luis GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 88 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 03-20664
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino Luis GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino Luis GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20664.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Omar F. Guerra Johansson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marino Luis Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute and importation of cocaine. He argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841, 952, and 960 were rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He 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. § 841. He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
Slaughter applies directly to Gonzalez's drug-possession conviction and by analogy to his drug-importation conviction, given the similarities between 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) & (b) and 21 U.S.C. § 952 and § 960(a)(1) & (b). His appeal is foreclosed by Slaughter, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.