Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10137/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10137-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Booker T. Muhammad
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 18, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 03-10137

Summary Calendar

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

BOOKER T. MUHAMMAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

m 4:02-CR-83-1-Y

______________________________

 Case: 03-10137 Document: 0051578967 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2005
2

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before SMITH and WIENER,

Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

**

This court afirmed defendant Booker

Muhammad’s conviction and sentence. United

States v. Muhammad, 91 Fed. Appx. 972 (5th

Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The Supreme Court

vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005). Muhammad v. United

States, 125 S. Ct. 1006 (2005). 

Muhammad concedesthat no SixthAmendment objection was raised in the district court,

so we should review for plain error. See

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520

(5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar.

31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). “An appellate court

may not correct an error the defendant failed

to raise in the district court unless there is ‘(1)

error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects

substantialrights.’” Id. (quoting United States

v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002)). 

In its supplemental letter brief addressing

Booker, the government “concedesthat inlight

of Booker, the district court committed a clear

or obvious error in sentencing Muhammad

based on facts not found by a jury or admitted

by the defendant, and in doing so under a

mandatory guidelines system.” The government correctly observes, however, that even

without the challenged drug quantity, the

district court, on resentencing, “would be presented with []an advisory guideline range

containing the same sentence it already imposed, and could thus impose that same sentence.” It follows that Muhammad cannot

show that he would receive a lesser sentence

on remand. 

Muhammad urges that, nonetheless, the

error is structural. As this court has held,

however, “we reject [the] argument toat Booker error isstructural and insusceptible to harmless error analysis, and that Booker error

should be presumed prejudicial, as both claims

are in conflict with Mares.” United States v.

Malveaux, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5960, at *4

n.9 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2005) (per curiam)

(unpublished). Muhammad’s substantial rights

have not been affected.

The judgments of conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED.

*

Judge Duhé was a member of this panel when

the opinion issued on April 5, 2004. Although he

remains a Senior Circuit Judge on this court, he is

currently not hearing cases. Accordingly, this

matter is decided by a quorum. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 46(d).

** 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.

 Case: 03-10137 Document: 0051578967 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2005