Filed: Dec. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41316 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAJUAN LOVEJOY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-298-2 - December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jajuan Lovejoy appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 2.3 kilograms of cocaine. Lovejoy cont
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41316 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAJUAN LOVEJOY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-298-2 - December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jajuan Lovejoy appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 2.3 kilograms of cocaine. Lovejoy conte..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41316
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAJUAN LOVEJOY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-00-CR-298-2
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jajuan Lovejoy appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
possession with intent to distribute 2.3 kilograms of cocaine.
Lovejoy contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) & (b) are facially
unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466
(2000).
As Lovejoy concedes, his argument is foreclosed by this
court’s decision in United States v. Slaughter,
238 F.3d 580, 582
(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied.,
532 U.S. 1045 (2001). He raises
the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.