United States v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41458
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBEN FRANCISCO GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-778-ALL
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ruben Francisco Gonzalez-Gonzalez appeals his guilty plea
conviction and sentence for possessing with the intent to
distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Gonzalez-
Gonzalez argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841 was rendered facially
unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490
(2000). Gonzalez-Gonzalez concedes that his argument is
foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-41458
-2-
580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000)(revised opinion), cert. denied, 532
U.S. 1045 (2001), which rejected a broad 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, Gonzalez-Gonzalez’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.

-- 2 of 2 --