Mario Alberto Muniz-Tapia appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana. He contends for the first time on appeal that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He *720 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 “[o]ther 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.” We have rejected the argument that Apprendi rendered the sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841 facially unconstitutional. Slaughter, 238 F.3d at 582. As Muniz-Tapia concedes, our opinion in Slaughter forecloses his argument. See id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.