Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41771/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41771-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy De Luna-Vigil
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41771

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JIMMY DE LUNA-VIGIL,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-704-ALL

--------------------

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court affirmed the sentence of Jimmy De Luna-Vigil. 

See United States v. De Luna-Vigil, No. 02-41771 (5th Cir. Feb.

18, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded

for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Newsome v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1113

(2005). We requested and received supplemental letter briefs

addressing the impact of Booker.

 Case: 02-41771 Document: 0051540084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2005
No. 02-41771

-2-

The Government argues that this appeal is moot because Vigil

was released from prison on January 27, 2004. Vigil contends

that his appeal still presents a live issue because he is on

supervised release until January 27, 2007. Article III, § 2 of

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

subsist[] through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,

trial and appellate.’” See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7

(1998); see also United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847 (5th

Cir. 1999). This requirement is met because Vigil is still

subject to supervised release, a part of his total sentence. See

United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir. 2001).

Vigil’s argument that the district court’s mandatory

application of the Guidelines is “structural,” and “presumptively

prejudicial,” thus obviating the need for a specific showing of

prejudice, has been rejected as inconsistent with this court’s

analysis in United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.),

petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). See

United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.

2005); United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 n.9 (5th Cir.

2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). 

Vigil’s alternative argument, that the district court’s

mandatory application of the Guidelines constitutes plain error,

also lacks merit. This court will not consider a Booker-related

challenge raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari

absent extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Taylor, 409

 Case: 02-41771 Document: 0051540084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2005
No. 02-41771

-3-

F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). Vigil’s argument that the record

suggests that the district court may have imposed a lesser

sentence under an advisory guideline system is refuted by the

record. Since Vigil has not demonstrated plain error, “it is

obvious that the much more demanding standard for extraordinary

circumstances, warranting review of an issue raised for the first

time in a petition for certiorari, cannot be satisfied.” See

Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677. 

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision

requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we

reinstate our judgment affirming Vigil’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 02-41771 Document: 0051540084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/20/2005