Court Opinion

ID: 35813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:33:05+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:59.765433
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                             FILED
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS        June 23, 2004
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                       Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                               Clerk

                            No. 03-41752
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO DIAZ, JR.,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. M-03-CR-586-1
                       --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Alberto Diaz, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction for

importation of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana.    Diaz argues

that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 were rendered facially

unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490

(2000).   Diaz 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

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                             No. 03-41752
                                  -2-

constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841.       He raises the issue only

to preserve it for Supreme Court review.

     A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s

decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding

decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States

Supreme Court.     Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466

(5th Cir. 1999).    No such decision overruling Slaughter exists.

Accordingly, Diaz’s argument is indeed foreclosed.      The judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

     The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief.    In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required.      The motion is GRANTED.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.