United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20525
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERTO SALAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CR-149-3
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberto Salas appeals his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence imposed for possession with intent to distribute 100
kilograms of marijuana and aiding and abetting in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841
is unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000). He acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by
United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000),
but states that he is raising it to preserve it for possible
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20525
-2-
Supreme Court review. The argument that Apprendi rendered 21
U.S.C. § 841 facially unconstitutional was rejected in Slaughter.
We are bound by this 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). Therefore,
this issue is foreclosed.
Salas argues that the supervised release condition which
prohibits him from possessing dangerous weapons conflicts with
the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence and must
be deleted. The Sentencing Guidelines recommend that all
defendants who have been convicted of a felony be prohibited from
possessing any dangerous weapon during the term of supervised
release. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(1). “If the district court orally
imposes a sentence without stating the conditions applicable to
this period of supervision, the judgment’s inclusion of
conditions that are mandatory, standard, or recommended by the
Sentencing Guidelines does not create a conflict with the oral
pronouncement.” United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934,
938 (5th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.