Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Wendell Edward Jester, also known as Wendell Jester

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-10317
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
WENDELL EDWARD JESTER, also known as Wendell Jester
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:97-CR-125-2-A
--------------------
May 17, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wendell Edward Jester was convicted of possession of cocaine
base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and aiding and abetting, in
violation 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court determined that his
sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
was between 188 and 235 months. The district court sentenced
Jester to 200 months’ imprisonment.
Jester argues that the district court erred in considering
his level of cooperation with the Government in determining his

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 98-10317
-2-
sentence. “Because the determination of a sentence within the
Guideline range does not require deviation from the Guidelines,
the information a district court may consider in assessing
sentence is necessarily quite broad: the court may consider any
relevant information that the Sentencing Guidelines do not
expressly exclude from consideration.” United States v. Lara-
Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 955 (5th Cir. 1990). There is no
provision in the Sentencing Guidelines which precludes a district
court from considering a lack of cooperation in determining a
sentence within the Guidelines range.
Jester also argues that, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000), 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially
unconstitutional. Jester concedes that United States v.
Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), resolves this
issue, but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review.
There is “nothing in the Supreme Court decision in Apprendi which
would permit us to conclude that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and
(b) . . . are unconstitutional on their face.” Slaughter, 238
F.3d at 582. Jester’s argument is foreclosed.
Jester’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --