Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-12
Citations: 176 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 04-40877
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 513–513

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40877.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 12, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Eugene Sanchez appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute 801 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Sanchez argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew that he possessed the particular type and quantity of controlled substance in this case. His argument is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Sanchez states that he is raising this issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review. This issue is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.2003).
Sanchez also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional under Apprendi. Sanchez also acknowledges that he is raising this issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review. This issue is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.