Rolando Jesus Arambul and Abelardo Andaverde-Gonzalez were convicted of *370 conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, and with aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 3,961.4 kilograms of marijuana, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2. Arambul was sentenced to 210 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. Andaverde was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. Both Arambul and Andaverde filed timely notices of appeal.

Arambul argues only that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the statute’s structure treats drug types and quantities as sentencing factors. Arambul concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), but he raises the issue in order to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.

Andaverde argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. There was evidence that Andaverde helped to unload a U-Haul truck full of marijuana into a vacant stash house and that the marijuana was stacked floor to ceiling and wall to wall in a bedroom. There was also evidence that Andaverde helped to unpack-age some of the marijuana from the nylon flour sacks in which it was contained and that, of all the participants arrested, Andaverde’s clothes were the dirtiest from the white flour from the nylon sacks. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to support Andaverde’s convictions. See United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 436 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Fierro, 38 F.3d 761, 768 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lopez, 979 F.2d 1024, 1031 (5th Cir. 1992).

Andaverde also argues that the district court erred in refusing to assign him a mitigating role in the offense. However, Andaverde has not met his burden of showing that the district court clearly erred in determining that he did not play a minor or minimal role in the offense. See United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.