Case ID: f-appx_183/html/0884-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mercedes SUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-11037.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 8, 2006.
    Brenda G. Bryn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Shereen J. Charlick, Kathleen M. Williams, Hector Flores, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Dawn Bowen, Anne R. Schultz, Randall Dana Katz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Mercedes Suarez (“Suarez”) appeals her 24-month sentence imposed after a jury convicted her of one count of using unauthorized access devices, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2); and two counts of using a false social security number in a credit card application, 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). On appeal, Suarez argues that the district court violated her ex post facto, due process and indictment clause rights by sentencing her under an advisory, as opposed to a mandatory guidelines regime.

The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court’s imposition of sentence and retroactive application of Booker violated ex post facto and due process principles; and (2) whether the district court’s retroactive application of Booker violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment indictment clause right.

“We review constitutional challenges to a sentence de novo.” United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir.2005).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm Suarez’s sentence based on our recent cases of United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2006) and United States v. De Armas, 180 Fed.Appx. 70 (11th Cir.2006), where we rejected the same arguments Suarez makes here.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).