Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Damian MARTINEZ-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-20
Citations: 72 F. App'x 959
Docket Number: No. 02-41680
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Damian MARTINEZ-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 72
Pages: 959–960

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Damian MARTINEZ-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-41680.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2003.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Arturo Villarreal, III, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pedro Damian Martinez-Carrillo ("Martinez") appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1).
Martinez argues that the district court improperly assessed criminal-history points under the Sentencing Guidelines for his two prior uncounseled federal convictions of illegal entry, for which he was sentenced to terms of stand-alone probation. He contends that use of these uncounseled convictions was prohibited by Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 122 S.Ct. 1764, 152 L.Ed.2d 888 (2002). As Martinez acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Perez-Macias, 335 F.3d 421, 427-28 (5th Cir.2003). He raises the argument only to preserve it for possible further review.
Martinez also maintains that the sentencing scheme of 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Mar tinez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). He raises the issue only to preserve it for possible further review.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.