Case ID: f-appx_177/html/0383-01.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. Cutberto Arnoldo CASSO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40275.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 11, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Hector Antonio Canales, Canales & Simonson, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Cutberto Arnoldo Casso appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately 596 kilograms of marijuana. Casso argues that the district court erred under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme.

Because Casso raises this argument for the first time on appeal, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th. Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005). Although the mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes error that is now clear in light of Booker, Casso has not shown that this error affected his substantial rights. See id.; United States v. Pennell, 409 F.3d 240, 245 (5th Cir.2005). The fact that Casso was sentenced at the lowest end of the Guidelines does not indicate that his sentence would likely have been different under advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 317-18 & n. 4. (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 264, 163 L.Ed.2d 238 (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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.