Case ID: f-appx_283/html/0195-01.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

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ambrosio Gutierrez GOMEZ, also known as Bocho, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50786
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 19, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Ray Ray Velarde, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ambrosio Gutierrez Gomez (Gutierrez) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. Gutierrez argues that the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the advisory guidelines range was based upon money laundering transactions that were not admitted by him or proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing in this case was held two and a half years after Booker was decided, and the district court clearly indicated that it knew that the Guidelines were advisory. By rendering the Sentencing Guidelines advisory only, Booker eliminated the Sixth Amendment concern's that prohibited a sentencing judge from finding all facts relevant to sentencing. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005). Post-Booker, “[t]he sentencing judge is entitled to find by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts relevant to the determination of a Guideline sentencing range and all facts relevant to the determination of a non-Guidelines sentence.” Id.; see United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir.2006). Gutierrez has not shown that the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.