Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Z. MORALES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-12
Citations: 140 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 04-41693
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Z. MORALES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Z. MORALES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41693
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 12, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Jason M. Davis, Law Offices of Jason Davis, Russell Matthew Soloway, Law Office of Russell M. Soloway, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Morales appeals from a guilty-plea conviction for transporting an undocumented alien within the United States for financial gain by means of a motor vehicle; 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1), (B)(i). Morales has abandoned on appeal his argument that the district court's three-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(A) violated his Sixth Amendment rights. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).
Morales renews his argument, preserved in the district court, that his constitutional rights were violated when the district court assessed a three-level increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(5), based on judicially determined facts, citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the three-level increase violated Morales's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, and the Government has not carried its burden of demonstrating that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Morales's sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285-86 (5th Cir.2005).
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.