Case ID: f-appx_141/html/0355-01.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. Jose Gerardo RAMOS-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 05-50037, 05-50095.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2005.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, Jose Gerardo Ramos-Garcia appeals only from his guilty-plea conviction for knowingly making a false statement on a resident alien application (No. 05-50095); Ramos-Garcia abandons any challenge with respect to the revocation of his supervised release relating to his prior illegal reentry conviction (No. 05-50037).

Ramos-Garcia contends that his sentence is invalid in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the sentencing judge applied the sentencing guidelines as if they were mandatory. We review for plain error. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). To prevail under a plain error analysis, Ramos-Garcia must show, among other things, that the error prejudiced him by adversely affecting his substantial rights. Id. at 733.

Ramos-Garcia fails to establish that he would have received a lower sentence had the district court applied the sentencing guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory. See id. at 733-34. He thus fails to establish prejudice to his substantial rights. See id.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.