United States v. Espinoza

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ruben Espinoza, Jr., raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir.2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) does not preclude the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841, provided *328 that the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the offense. See also United States v. Harper, 527 F.3d 396, 411 (5th Cir.) (except in the case of substantial assistance to the Government or compliance with the safety valve criteria, sentencing courts, post United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), lack discretion to depart below relevant statutory mínimums), cert. denied, —— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 212, 172 L.Ed.2d 157 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Footnotes [*] Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.