Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria De Jesus SAMUDIO-DE ALONSO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-25
Citations: 203 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 06-40173
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria De Jesus SAMUDIO-DE ALONSO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria De Jesus SAMUDIO-DE ALONSO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40173.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 25, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maria de Jesus Samudio-de Alonso appeals her jury convictions for importing into the United States, and possessing with intent to distribute, cocaine. She argues pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that (1) a defendant's knowledge of drug type and drug quantity are material elements of the offense of conviction which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and (2) 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional.
She correctly concedes that these issues are foreclosed by United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.2003), and United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000), respectively, and she raises them only to preserve their further review by the Supreme Court. We are bound by our precedent absent an intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc decision. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.