Case ID: f-appx_153/html/0302-01.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. Ramon Ernesto Medina LIMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-11194.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
    Mark L. Nichols, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jerry V. Beard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Lubbock, TX, Bonita L. Gun-den, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ramon Ernesto Medina Limas (“Medina”) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported and after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). For the first time on appeal, Medina argues that his 57-month prison sentence violates United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), insofar as he was sentenced under the formerly mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime.

Medina concedes that, under this court’s precedent, his Booker claim fails because he cannot show that the alleged error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 267, — L.Ed.2d-(2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, — L.Ed.2d - (2005). To the extent that Medina contends that application of the mandatory Guideline regime was a “structural” error that is not susceptible to plain-error analysis, or alternatively that plain-error prejudice should be presumed, we have rejected such arguments. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 464, — L.Ed.2d-(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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.