United States v. Keling , 73 F. App'x 685 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 20, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41702
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT EUGENE KELING,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-02-CR-500-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Eugene Keling appeals his conviction and sentence
for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He concedes
that the issue whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466(2000) rendered 21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional is foreclosed by
United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000),
and he raises that issue only to preserve its review by the
Supreme Court. We are indeed bound by Slaughter absent an
intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41702
-2-
decision. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th
Cir. 1999).
Keling additionally contends that the district court
clearly erred in its finding that he was not entitled to a role
adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The record supports the
district court’s finding that Keling was a key figure in
transporting the cocaine. One month prior to his arrest, Keling
purchased the car he was driving for the specific purpose of drug
trafficking with monies he received from other participants in
the offense; he registered the vehicle to the address of the
Gateway Hotel in Laredo, Texas; and he was to be paid between
$5,000 and $10,000 for his role in transporting roughly 70 pounds
of cocaine from Mexico to Houston, Texas. Consequently, the
district court’s refusal to find that he was a “minimal” or
“minor” participant was not clear error. See United States
v. Leal-Mendoza, 281 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.