United States v. Laredo-Molinar

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50758
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARTURO LAREDO-MOLINAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-2107-5-DB
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arturo Laredo-Molinar pleaded guilty of importing into the
United States more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). He appeals the enhanced sentence imposed
in his case under 21 U.S.C. §§ 960(a)(1), and (b)(2)(G).
Laredo-Molinar argues that 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(2)(G) is facially
unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000). Laredo-Molinar raises his argument only to preserve
it for Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his argument

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-50758
-2-
is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States
v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), which held
that Apprendi did not render analogous statutes under the
Controlled Substances Act facially unconstitutional.
This court is bound by its 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);
United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 91 (5th Cir. 1994).
Laredo-Molinar’s argument is indeed foreclosed. Because Laredo-
Molinar’s argument is foreclosed, the Government has filed a
motion asking this court to summarily affirm the district court’s
judgment. That motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

-- 2 of 2 --