Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40616/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40616-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Ivan Guerrero
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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 11, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 03-40616

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS IVAN GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-538-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The SupremeCourt has granted Defendant-Appellant LuisIvan Guerrero’s petition for a writ

of certiorari, vacated our previous affirmance of his conviction and sentence, and remanded the case

to this court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Newsome v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1112 (2005). We requested and received supplemental letter

 Case: 03-40616 Document: 0051401115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2005
2

briefing addressing the impact of Booker.

Guerrero challenged the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines as applied to him for

the first time in a petition for rehearing from the denial of his petition for a writ of certiorari. Absent

exceptional circumstances, we will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for

certiorari. United States v. Taylor, 409 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). An appellant who cannot

satisfy the plain error standard under United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), petition

for cert. filed (March 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517) cannot demonstrate extraordinarycircumstances. See

Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677 (“Because plain error has not been shown, it is obvious that the much more

demanding standard for extraordinary circumstances . . . cannot be satisfied.”). 

To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate an: (1) error; (2) that is plain; (3) that

affectssubstantialrights; and (4) the errorseriouslyaffectsthe fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002). To satisfy the third

prong of the plain error test under Booker, the appellant must demonstrate that “the sentencing

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

significantly different result.” Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. “[I]f it is equally plausible that the error

worked in favor of the defense, the defendant loses; if the effect of the error is uncertain so that we

do not know which, if either, side is helped, the defendant loses.” Id. Guerrero points to nothing in

the record demonstrating that the sentencing judge would have imposed a lesser sentence under an

advisory scheme. Accordingly, he has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting

consideration of his claim. See Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677.

Having reconsidered our decision in accordance with the Supreme Court’s instructions, we

reinstate our judgment affirming Guerrero’s conviction and sentence. 

 Case: 03-40616 Document: 0051401115 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2005