Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40163/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40163-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Wayne Abney
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

1 --- U.S. ----, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40163

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD WAYNE ABNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-1250-1

______________________

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:*

Ronald Wayne Abney challenges his sentence for transportation

of an illegal alien. Although he plead guilty and admitted the

facts underlying his sentence enhancement, he claims that his

sentence was imposed in violation of United States v. Booker.

1 We

affirm.

 Case: 03-40163 Document: 0051181951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2005
2 U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2L1.1(b)(5) (2004).

3 --- U.S. ----, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

4 See Newsome v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 125 S. Ct. 1112 (2005)

(mem.).

2

I

Ronald Wayne Abney plead guilty to one count of transportation

of an illegal alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. At his rearraignment, Abney conceded that he had driven a tractor-trailer

through Laredo, Texas, in August with seven illegal aliens in the

back of the trailer. Based on this admission, the district court

enhanced Abney’s offense level by three on grounds that his conduct

“intentionally or recklessly creat[ed] a substantial risk of death

or serious bodily injury to another person.”2 The court then

sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment to be followed by

three years’ supervised release. 

We affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court

denied Abney’s petition for writ of certiorari, but after Blakely

v. Washington3 granted a timely motion for rehearing vacating our

judgment and remanding for further consideration in light of

Booker.

4 We ordered supplemental briefing.

II

The Government argues on remand that this appeal is moot as

Abney was released from custody on December 12, 2003. Abney urges

that an actual controversy still exists because he is subject to

supervised release until December 12, 2006. Article III, § 2 of

 Case: 03-40163 Document: 0051181951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2005
5 United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting

Spender v. Kemna,523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

6 See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a) (“The court, in imposing a sentence to a term of

imprisonment for a felony or a misdemeanor, may include as a part of the sentence

a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after

imprisonment. . . .”); United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir.

2001)(“[S]upervised release, while a form of post-imprisonment supervision, is

still considered to be a component of the defendant’s total sentence.”); United

States v. Benbrook, 119 F.3d 338, 341 n.10 (5th Cir. 1997) (“A period of

supervised release is part of the defendant’s sentence.”). 

7 United States v. Infante, --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 639619, at *13 (5th Cir.

March 21, 2005) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993)).

8 United States v. Castillo, 386 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2004); see Olano,

507 U.S. at 732.

3

the Constitution requires that a “‘case-or-controversy . . .

subsist[] through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial

and appellate.’”5 We find that this requirement is met because

Abney is still subject to supervised release, a part of his total

sentence.6 

Turning to the merits, Abney concedes that he failed to raise

a Blakely or Booker-type objection in the district court. Thus,

our review is for plain error only. “We find plain error when: (1)

there was an error; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3)

the error affected the defendant's substantial rights.”7 If all

three conditions are met we have discretion to correct the error;

however, we “ordinarily will not do so unless it affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.”8

Assuming that the first two prongs of the plain error test are

 Case: 03-40163 Document: 0051181951 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2005
9 See United States v. Mares, --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 503715, at *8 (5th

Cir. March 4, 2005). The Government argues that the trial court did not commit

Booker error because Abney admitted all of the facts necessary to apply the

endangerment enhancement. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756 (“Any fact (other than

a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the

maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict

must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt.”); United States v. Holmes, --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 768942, at *17 (April

6, 2005) (finding no Booker error for purposes of sentence enhancement for

committing an offense involving an elected official when the defendant admits at

trial that person involved in offense was an elected official). This argument

raises the question of whether Abney admitted to his mens rea when he admitted

that he transported aliens in a manner that may be considered dangerous. See

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 493 (2000) (“The defendant's intent in

committing a crime is perhaps as close as one might hope to come to a core

criminal offense ‘element.’”). Because Abney cannot prevail regardless of our

finding on this point, we decline to address this question directly. See United

States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 451 (5th Cir. 2002) (assuming plain error and

disposing of claim on grounds that any such error was harmless).

10 Id. at *9.

4

satisfied here,9 Abney has failed to demonstrate that his

substantial rights were affected. In United States v. Mares, we

found that in order to satisfy the third prong of the plain error

test, the proponent of the error must demonstrate that his sentence

“would have likely been different had the judge been sentencing

under the Booker advisory regime rather then the pre-Booker

mandatory regime.”10 Abney points to the district court’s decision

to sentence him to eighteen months’ imprisonment, at the bottom end

of his guidelines range. The Government replies that the district

court recognized its ability to depart below the guideline range,

as Abney requested, but declined to do so. Absent additional

evidence, we cannot say that the trial court would have imposed a

different sentence had the Guidelines been advisory.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-40163 Document: 0051181951 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/13/2005
5

 Case: 03-40163 Document: 0051181951 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/13/2005