United States v. Enriquez ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51086
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL ENRIQUEZ
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(99-CR-1549)
October 4, 2001
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Enriquez was convicted of knowingly importing five kilograms
or more of cocaine and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He claims
that the Supreme Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey1
requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Enriquez knew the precise quantity of drugs he was smuggling.
Enriquez does not allege that the government failed to prove
the quantity of drugs imported beyond a reasonable doubt, as
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Apprendi requires. In any case, Apprendi is inapposite because the
drug quantity did not increase Enriquez’s sentence beyond the
statutory maximum.2
The crux of Enriquez’s argument is that Apprendi alters the
scienter requirement of 21 U.S.C § 960(a)(1), requiring the
government to prove that he knew the precise quantity of drugs he
was smuggling. Section 960(a)(1) outlaws “knowingly or
intentionally import[ing] or export[ing] a controlled substance.”3
We have long held that this statute is a “specific intent” statute
and merely requires knowledge that the substance imported is a
controlled substance.4 Apprendi does not alter this analysis.
AFFIRMED.
2
United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000).
3
21 U.S.C. § 960(a)(1).
4
United States v. Restrepo-Granda, 575 F.2d 524, 527 (5th
Cir. 1978).