United States v. Saucier , 78 F. App'x 952 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS          October 23, 2003
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-20009
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    KENNETH SAUCIER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-02-CR-305-1
    --------------------
    Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Kenneth Saucier appeals his conspiracy to possess with intent
    to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and possession with
    intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base.          Saucier
    argues that 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
     was rendered facially unconstitutional
    by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490 (2000).            Saucier
    concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United
    States v. Slaughter, 
    238 F.3d 580
    , 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000), which
    rejected a broad Apprendi-based attack on the constitutionality of
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    that statute.   He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme
    Court review.    A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior
    panel's decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or
    superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United
    States Supreme Court.     Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 
    187 F.3d 452
    , 466 (5th Cir. 1999).     No such decision overruling Slaughter
    exists.
    Saucier has filed a pro se motion seeking to withdraw the
    filed brief, dismiss his appellate counsel, and represent himself
    on appeal.   However, because counsel has already filed a brief on
    Saucier's behalf, Saucier's request for the appointment of new
    counsel is untimely.     Cf. United States v. Wagner, 
    158 F.3d 901
    ,
    902 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
    and the motion DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-20009

Citation Numbers: 78 F. App'x 952

Judges: Smith, Demoss, Stewart

Filed Date: 10/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024