Leonel Fernando Gomez-Galicia appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin and importation of heroin. He argues: (1) that the district court erred in denying him a reduction in his total offense level based on his minor role in the offense and (2) that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Gomez concedes that his second argument is foreclosed but nevertheless raises the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Gomez was not entitled to a minor role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). See United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994). Gomez did not demonstrate that he was peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity. See United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2001).

Gomez’s argument regarding the constitutionality of the statutes of conviction is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.