IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50202
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS E. HEMPFLING, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CR-202-1-FB
--------------------
February 14, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Hempfling (“Hempfling”) was convicted of conspiracy
to manufacture and distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846, aiding and abetting and manufacture of in
excess of 50 grams of a mixture containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18
U.S.C. § 2, and aiding and abetting and possession of a listed
chemical with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50202
-2-
that (1) his sentence was unconstitutional in light of Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and (2) permitting the
testimony of a witness who received a favorable plea agreement in
exchange for his testimony violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3).
Hempfling did not raise his arguments before the district
court. Accordingly, review is for plain error. See United
States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 575 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, S. Ct. (U.S. Jan. 8, 2001), 2001 WL 13025; United
States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 1998).
The district court committed no errors, plain or otherwise.
Hempfling’s sentence was not unconstitutional in light of
Apprendi. See United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 165-66
(5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 4,
2001)(No. 00-7819). Permitting the testimony of a witness who
received a favorable plea agreement in exchange for his testimony
did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3). See United States v.
Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 366-68 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.