Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wellington Roeli GONZALEZ-CISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-24
Citations: 146 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 04-40942
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wellington Roeli GONZALEZ-CISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wellington Roeli GONZALEZ-CISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40942.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 24, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Philip T. Cowen, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wellington Roeli Gonzalez-Cisneros appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues for the first time on appeal that he is entitled to resentencing because he was sentenced under the mandatory Guideline regime held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review this argument for plain error only. United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir.2005).
Our review of the record does not reveal that the district court's error affected the outcome of the sentencing proceedings. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.2005). Gonzalez has therefore failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights, and he consequently cannot meet the plain error standard of review. Id. Given that Gonzalez is not entitled to resentencing, we pretermit discussion of the validity of his appeal waiver.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.