Case ID: f-appx_214/html/0428-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITES STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonardo COMPEAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-20745
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 18, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Larry Chris lies, Rockport Mail Center, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Leonardo Compean appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, money laundering, aiding and abetting, and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Compean’s first two arguments, that the district court erred by failing to adequately inquire into his eligibility for appointed counsel and that his waiver of counsel was not knowing and voluntary, are without merit because Compean was already represented by retained counsel at the sentencing hearing but opted instead to represent himself.

Compean’s reliance on United States v. Reyes-Celestino, 443 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2006), to support his argument that he did not waive his right to raise a claim under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), in the plea agreement is also unavailing. Compean was sentenced in August 2005, after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Booker and under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines system now in effect. Thus the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines in an advisory way, and no error occurred.

Finally, Compean’s contention that the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory violated due process is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.