IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50202 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS E. HEMPFLING, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CR-202-1-FB -------------------- February 14, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Hempfling (“Hempfling”) was convicted of conspiracy

to manufacture and distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture

containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation

of

, aiding and abetting and manufacture of in

excess of 50 grams of a mixture containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1) and

, and aiding and abetting and possession of a listed

chemical with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in

violation of

(d)(1) and

. He argues

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-50202 -2-

that (1) his sentence was unconstitutional in light of Apprendi

v. New Jersey,

(2000), and (2) permitting the

testimony of a witness who received a favorable plea agreement in

exchange for his testimony violated

(b)(3).

Hempfling did not raise his arguments before the district

court. Accordingly, review is for plain error. See United

States v. Meshack,

(5th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, S. Ct. (U.S. Jan. 8, 2001),

; United

States v. Haese,

(5th Cir. 1998).

The district court committed no errors, plain or otherwise.

Hempfling’s sentence was not unconstitutional in light of

Apprendi. See United States v. Doggett,

(5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 4,

2001)(No. 00-7819). Permitting the testimony of a witness who

received a favorable plea agreement in exchange for his testimony

did not violate

(b)(3). See United States v.

Haese,

(5th Cir. 1998). The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.