Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40786/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40786-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Manuel Avila-Chavez
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

August 3, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40786

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN MANUEL AVILA-CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. B-03-CR-59-1

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

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 Juan Manuel Avila-Chavez

(“Avila”). See United States v. Avila-Chavez, No. 03-40786 (5th

Cir. Feb. 18, 2004). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for

further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738 (2005). We requested and received supplemental letter

briefs addressing the impact of Booker. 

The Government argues that this appeal is moot because Avila

was released from prison and deported back to Mexico on December

 Case: 03-40786 Document: 0051567916 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2005
No. 03-40786 

-2-

27, 2004. Avila argues that his appeal “still presents a live

issue” because he is on supervised release until December 27,

2005. 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 Avila 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). 

Avila’s argument that the district court’s mandatory

application of the guidelines “is structural, or at least

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, ___ F.3d ___, No. 04-40478,

2005 WL 1331282 *2 (5th Cir. June 7, 2005); United States v.

Malveaux, ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-41618, 2005 WL 1320362 *1 n.9 (5th

Cir. Apr. 11, 2005). Avila’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 F. 3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005)(5th

 Case: 03-40786 Document: 0051567916 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2005
No. 03-40786 

-3-

Cir. 2005). Avila identifies “no evidence in the record

suggesting that the district court would have imposed a lesser

sentence under an advisory guidelines system.” Id. (citing

United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez, 405 F.3d 260, 261 (5th Cir.

2005)); Mares, 402 F.3d at 521-22. The fact that the district

court imposed the minimum sentence under the guideline range

“alone is no indication that the judge would have reached a

different conclusion under an advisory scheme.” See United

States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 317-18 n.4 (5th Cir.

2005)(citing Mares, 402 F.3d at 521-22). Because Avila 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 Avila’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-40786 Document: 0051567916 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2005