* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

November 30, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40916 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID DANIEL SALAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-87-CR-28-ALL

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

T his court affirmed the sentence of David Daniel Salaza r

.

United States v. Salazar

, No. 03-40916 (5th Cir. Apr. 9, 2004)

(unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further

consideration in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). S ee Salazar v. United States

, 125 S. Ct. 1038 (2005). We

requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the

impact of Booker

.No. 03-40916

-2-

Salazar argues that the district court erred by enhancing his

sentence based upon judge-found facts that were not admitted by him

or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserts that

this issue should be reviewed under the harmless error standard

because he raised the substance of this issue both in the district

court and this court.

While Salazar challenged the factual findings underpinning the

drug quantity determination both in the district court and this

court, he did not raise a Sixth Amendment challenge or make an

objection b ased upon B ooker

, Blakely v. Washington

, 542 U.S. 296

(2004), or Apprendi v. New Jersey

, 53 0 U.S. 466 (2000). His

objections were not sufficient to preserve this issue for review.

See Unite d States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 516-17 & n.2, 520 (5th

Cir. 2005), cert. denied

, --- U.S. ----, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). The

earliest that Salazar could have raised this issue was in his

petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. We 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).

Salazar identifies “no evidence in the record suggesting that

the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under an

advisory guidelines system.” I d. at 677; see also Mares

, 402 F.3d

at 521-22

. Accordingly, Salazar has not shown that his sentence

was plainly erroneous. S ee Taylor

, 409 F.3d at 677. Because

Salazar has not demonstrated plain error, “it is obvious that theNo. 03-40916

-3-

much more demanding standard for extraordinary circumstances,

warranting review of an issue raised for th e first time in a

petition for certiorari, cannot be satisfied.” Id.

Bec ause nothing in the Supreme Court’s B ooker decision

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

reinstate our judgment affirming Salazar’s convictions and

sentences.

AFFIRMED.