PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Gonzalez appeals the sentences imposed following his guilty plea convictions of one count of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and nine counts of possessing with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. Gonzalez argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) was rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Gonzalez concedes that his argument is

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-50948 -2- foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000)(revised opinion), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1045 (2001), which rejected a broad Apprendi-based attack on the constitutionality of 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. Accordingly, Gonzalez’s argument is indeed foreclosed.

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. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.