Filed: Aug. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41096 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS ROQUE CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-126-ALL - August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Luis Roque Cardenas appeals his conviction for possessing with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuan
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41096 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS ROQUE CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-126-ALL - August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Luis Roque Cardenas appeals his conviction for possessing with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41096
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ROQUE CARDENAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-126-ALL
--------------------
August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Roque Cardenas appeals his conviction for possessing
with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana,
under 21 U.S.C. ยง 841, which he contends is unconstitutional in
light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000). Cardenas
concedes that this argument is foreclosed. See United States v.
Slaughter,
238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied.,
532
U.S. 1045 (2001). He seeks to preserve his argument for further
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.