United States v. Saldana

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40819
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GLORIA SALAZAR SALDANA,
also known as Margarita Camarillo-Ponce,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-95-CR-234-1
--------------------
December 4, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gloria Salazar-Saldana appeals her conviction of importation
of marijuana into the country. She challenges the district
court’s determination that her right to a speedy trial was not
violated and the court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the
indictment. She also argues that 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)’s penalty
provisions are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40819
-2-
The district court’s weighing of the Barker v. Wingo, 407
U.S. 514, 530 (1972), four factors was correct. Saldana’s right
to a speedy trial was not violated given that the six-year delay
was primarily due to her returning to the United States without
notifying authorities. Her Apprendi argument is without merit.
See United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir.
2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1045 (2001).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --