Victor Prado-Martinez (Prado) appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. Prado contends for the first time on appeal that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b) are facially unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Prado acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2000), but he seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

In Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, the Supreme Court held that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” This court has rejected the argument that Apprendi rendered the sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841 facially unconstitutional. See Slaughter, 238 F.3d at 582. As Prado concedes, the court’s opinion in Slaughter forecloses his argument. See id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.