Americo Contreras appeals his guilty plea conviction for importation of marijuana into the United States. Contreras argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 were rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Contreras concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United States *878 v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000), and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999). No such decision overruling Slaughter exists. Accordingly, Contreras’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.