Filed: Oct. 05, 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 October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40094 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD ALEXANDER SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-512-1 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40094 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD ALEXANDER SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-512-1 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40094
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD ALEXANDER SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-512-1
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ronald Alexander
Smith raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.
Slaughter,
238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render
21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s
motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.