Jose Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for importing 35.34 kilograms of cocaine. He argues: (1) that the district court erred when it denied 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). Lopez concedes that his second argument is foreclosed but nevertheless raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review.

The large quantity of cocaine that Lopez was transporting supports the denial of a minor participant reduction despite Lopez’s claim that he was only a courier. See United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1409-10 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court therefore did not clearly err in determining that Lopez 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).

Lopez’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).

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.