Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41170/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41170-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Oralia Lozano-Tamez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41170

Summary Calender

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA ORALIA LOZANO-TAMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(03-CR-277)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Oralia Lozano-Tamez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 100

grams of black tar heroin in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). She wassentenced

to 37 months incarceration, a sentence which was, in all respects, affirmed by this court. United

States v. Lozano-Tamez, 90 Fed.Appx. 79 (5th Cir. 2004)(per curiam). Subsequently however the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 03-41170 Document: 0051641279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2005
2

Supreme Court vacated Lozano-Tamez’s sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct.

1419 (2005). See Jimenez-Velasco v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1110 (2005). Thereafter, this court

directed the partiesto submitsupplementalbriefing to determine whether, based onBooker, LozanoTamez’s sentence had been rendered constitutionally infirm.

Lozano-Tamez concedesthatshe did not object to hersentence either on the grounds:(1) that

the judge enhanced her sentence based on facts admitted by her or proven beyond a reasonable doubt

by a jury, see Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 (2005), nor (2) premised on the fact that she wassentenced

under the Sentencing Guidelines when they were understood to be mandatory. Id. at 764-65.

Therefore, Lozano-Tamez’ssentence willbe reviewed for plainerror. Our plain error inquiryinvolves

four related prongs: (1) there must have been an error; (2) that was clear and obvious; and (3) said

error affected the substantialrights of the defendant. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th

Cir. 2005). If the foregoing elements are satisfied, a reviewing court would properly find plain error

if: (4) a demonstration is made that the error serio usly affected “the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id.

We conclude that there has been no Booker error in this case. Lozano-Tamez’s 37 month

sentence was at the bottom the Sentencing Guidelines -- given that her Criminal History Category

was I and Total Offense Level was 21 -- thus no showing can be made that she was subjected to a

sentence enhancement based on conduct admitted by her o r proven to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt. Second, given that the onus is placed on her to establish that “the sentencing judge –

sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one – would have reached a

significantlydifferent result” Mares, 402 F.3d at 521, we find nothing in the record remotelysuggests

that she has met this burden. Moreover, we are also unpersuaded by Lozano-Tamez argument that

 Case: 03-41170 Document: 0051641279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2005
3

the sentencing error in this case was “structural,” asthis argument has already been foreclosed by this

court. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

Lozano-Tamez’s sentence must be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-41170 Document: 0051641279 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2005