United States v. Lopez-Lara

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41031
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBEN LOPEZ-LARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-02-CR-73-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ruben Lopez-Lara appeals his guilty plea conviction for
possession of less than fifty kilograms of marijuana with intent
to distribute. Lopez-Lara argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) and
(b) were rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Lopez-Lara concedes that his
argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v.
Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000)(revised opinion),
cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1045 (2001), which rejected a broad

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-41031
-2-
Apprendi-based attack on the constitutionality of that statute.
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, Lopez-Lara’s argument is foreclosed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --