Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio SANTOS-PADILLA, also known as Jaime Santiago Guzman-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-09
Citations: 147 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 04-41468
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio SANTOS-PADILLA, also known as Jaime Santiago Guzman-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 147
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio SANTOS-PADILLA, also known as Jaime Santiago Guzman-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41468.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julio Santos-Padilla ("Santos"), also known as Jaime Santiago Guzman-Lopez, appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). He argues for the first time on appeal that he is entitled to resentencing because he was sentenced under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines 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. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 464, — L.Ed.2d - (2005) (No. 05-6242).
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.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 267, — L.Ed.2d - (2005). Because Santos has failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights, he cannot meet the plain error standard of review. See id. Given that Santos 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.