IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40767
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO PUENTE-VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-01-CR-141-1
--------------------
March 27, 2002
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Puente-Vasquez appeals his jury conviction and his
sentence for importing and possessing with the intent to
distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana, violations of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 952(a) & 960(a)(1). He argues pursuant to
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that he knew the type and quantity of
the controlled substance which he imported and possessed and that
21 U.S.C. § 841, 952, and 960 are facially unconstitutional.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40767
-2-
Puente argues that Apprendi alters the scienter requirements
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), 952(a), and 960(a)(1), requiring the
Government to prove that he knew the type and quantity of drugs
he imported and possessed. We have previously held that these
statutes are “specific intent” statutes which require a defendant
to have only knowledge that he possessed an illegal drug, not
that he know the specific drug he possessed. See United States
v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th Cir. 1999); see
also United States v. Restrepo-Granada, 575 F.2d 524, 527 (5th
Cir. 1978). Apprendi does not alter this analysis.
Puente’s argument that the statutes under which he was
convicted are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi is,
as he concedes, foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238
F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2015
(2001). He raises the issue solely to preserve it for Supreme
Court review. This court is bound by its precedent absent an
intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc
decision. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th
Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1091 (2000).
AFFIRMED.