Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noelia Campos MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-17
Citations: 89 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 03-41244
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noelia Campos MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noelia Campos MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41244.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 17, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, US Attorney’s Office, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Christopher Atkinson Jenkins, Samy K. Khalil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Noelia Campos Madrigal appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction of possessing with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine.
Madrigal complains that the district court did not apply the safety-valve provisions in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 2Dl.l(b)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) in order to sentence her without regard for the statutory minimum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). She challenges the district court's finding that she did not meet the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) because she failed truthfully to provide the government with all information and evidence she had concerning her offense. Madrigal has not shown that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 964-65 (5th Cir. 1999).
Madrigal also challenges the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841 in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the statute treats drug type and quantity as sentencing factors. Madrigal raises the issue solely to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. As Madrigal acknowledges, the argument 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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.