Filed: Feb. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40870 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SEBASTIAN FLORES-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-621-1 - Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sebastian Flores-Serrano appeals hi
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40870 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SEBASTIAN FLORES-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-621-1 - Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sebastian Flores-Serrano appeals his..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40870
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SEBASTIAN FLORES-SERRANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-621-1
--------------------
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sebastian Flores-Serrano appeals his guilty plea conviction
and sentence for possession with intent to distribute 5.14
kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A). He contends that the provisions of § 841(a) and (b)
are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Flores-Serrano concedes, his argument is
foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Slaughter,
238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). He raises the issue only to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-40870
-2-
preserve it for Supreme Court review. Accordingly, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.