United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                             FILED
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS      August 18, 2004
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                       Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                               Clerk

                            No. 03-41721
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMERICO CONTRERAS,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. M-03-CR-120-1
                        --------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Americo Contreras appeals his guilty plea conviction for

importation of marijuana into the United States.   Contreras

argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 were rendered facially

unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

, 490

(2000).   Contreras concedes that his argument is foreclosed by

our opinion in United States v. Slaughter, 

, 581-82

(5th Cir. 2000), and he raises the issue to preserve it for

further review.


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-41721
                                  -2-

     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, 

, 466

(5th Cir. 1999).    No such decision overruling Slaughter exists.

Accordingly, Contreras’s argument is foreclosed.    The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.