IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11061
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SANTIAGO GUADALUPE CARRANZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CR-333-7-T
--------------------
January 24, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Santiago Guadalupe Carranza appeals his guilty-plea
convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
in excess of 100 grams of methamphetamine and money laundering.
Relying on Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), and
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), he contends that
the total quantity of drugs attributable to him should have been
alleged in the indictment as an essential element of the charged
conspiracy.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-11061
-2-
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convinces us that no reversible error was committed. We have
held “that a fact used in sentencing that does not increase a
penalty beyond the statutory maximum need not be alleged in the
indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000). The
indictment explicitly charged Carranza with conspiracy to
“possess with intent to distribute and distribute in excess of
100 grams of methamphetamine . . . in violation of Title 21,
United States Code Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).”
At the time of the offense, § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) set forth that
the penalty range for possession with intent to distribute 100
grams or more of methamphetamine was not less than ten years and
not more than life. § 841(b)(1)(A) (1998). Carranza’s 340-month
sentence on count one, determined under the applicable Sentencing
Guidelines, obviously does not exceed the statutory maximum of
life imprisonment. Accordingly, there is no potential Apprendi
issue based on the sufficiency of the indictment. See Keith, 230
F.3d at 787.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.