Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alberto CEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-30
Citations: 229 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 06-50476
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alberto CEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 309–309

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alberto CEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50476
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 30, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ricardo Ramos, The Ramos Law Firm, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Juan Alberto Cedillo was convicted of one charge of simple possession of cocaine and one charge of importation of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to serve 12 months in prison on the possession count to run concurrently with 70 months in prison on the importation count. This court affirmed his conviction but remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). On remand, the district court reimposed the sentence that it had initially given Cedillo. Cedillo now appeals that sentence. Cedillo argues that the district court erred by basing his sentence on its own factual findings, which were made under the preponderance of the evidence standard. This argument is unavailing. The district court committed no error by sentencing Cedillo in accordance with its own factual findings. See United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 264 (5th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir.2005). The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.