
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Guadalupe AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-10194.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
    
      Nancy E. Larson, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defen-dani>-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Javier Guadalupe Aguilar appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Aguilar challenges the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 556, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), calls into question United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1045, 121 S.Ct. 2015, 149 L.Ed.2d 1015 (2001), in which this court upheld the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841. In Harris, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that permitted a judge to determine the presence or absence of a factor required for determination of the applicable statutory minimum sentence. 536 U.S. at 568. In Harris, the Supreme Court did not consider the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841 or expressly reject this court’s view of 21 U.S.C. § 841 in Slaughter. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another absent an intervening decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court or the en banc court. See Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir.1997). Because Slaughter has not been overruled and is still binding precedent in this circuit, Aguilar’s argument is foreclosed. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     