United States v. Stevenson
This text of 95 F. App'x 604 (United States v. Stevenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
John David Stevenson was found guilty following a bench trial of possessing in *605 excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana -with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Stevenson urges this court to reconsider the constitutionality of suspicionless roadblock stops in light of Justice Thomas’s dissent in City of Indianappolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 56, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). He also argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841 was rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Stevenson concedes that his arguments are foreclosed, and he raises the issues only to preserve them for possible further 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 exists. Accordingly, Stevenson’s arguments are indeed foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *605 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 F. App'x 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stevenson-ca5-2004.