Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicia ROBERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 04-41208
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicia ROBERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicia ROBERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41208.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2006.
Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Amy R. Blalock, Wayne R. Dickey, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Felicia Roberson appeals from a guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and for aiding and abetting in the offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2.
For the first time on appeal, Roberson argues that the district court erred in im posing a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuelar-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005). Roberson has not shown that the district court would have sentenced her differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. Accordingly, Roberson has failed to show that the district court's imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. See id. at 733-34.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.