Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41696/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41696-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Jimenez-Velasco
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

February 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41696

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JUAN JIMENEZ-VELASCO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-509-ALL

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

This court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Juan

Jimenez-Velasco. United States v. Jimenez-Velasco, No. 02-41696

(5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2004). In Jiminez-Velasco v. United States,

125 S. Ct. 1110 (2005), the Supreme Court granted JiminezVelasco’s petition for a rehearing of the denial of his writ of

certiorari, vacated its previous order denying his petition for a

writ of certiorari, vacated our opinion affirming JimenezVelasco’s conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to this

 Case: 02-41696 Document: 0051431154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2006
No. 02-41696

-2-

court 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. 

Jimenez-Velasco argues that the district court erred in

sentencing him pursuant to the mandatory United States Sentencing

Guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in Booker, because his

sentence was based upon drug amounts not found by a jury or

admitted by him. He did not raise this issue in district court. 

Therefore, we review only for plain error, and Jimenez-Velasco

fails to demonstrate that the district court would have reached a

significantly different result under an advisory guidelines

scheme. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th

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

9517); see also United States v. Taylor, 409 F.3d 675, 676-77

(5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, this court has rejected his argument

that a Booker error is a structural error or that such error is

presumed to be prejudicial. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-22; see

also United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n.9 (5th Cir.

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

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision

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

reinstate our judgment affirming Jimenez-Velasco’s conviction and

sentence.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 02-41696 Document: 0051431154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2006