Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis RODRIGUEZ-TERMINAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-21
Citations: 159 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 04-20646
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis RODRIGUEZ-TERMINAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis RODRIGUEZ-TERMINAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-20646
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 21, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luis Rodriguez-Terminal (Rodriguez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Rodriguez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Rodriguez correctly acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).
Rodriguez also contends that the district court erred in imposing a sentence pursuant to a belief that the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259-60, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). In the district court, Rodriguez argued that his sentence was improperly enhanced on the basis of his prior conviction for a crime of violence, in contravention of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) . This court need not decide whether this objection preserved a mandatory-sentencing-guideline argument for appeal, as his claims would succeed even under plain error review.
Under a plain-error standard, the defendant bears the burden of "establish[ing] that the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings." United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005) ; see also United States v. Cruz, 418 F.3d 481, 485 (5th Cir.2005). In the instant case, the district court opined.that in the absence of the Sentencing Guidelines, it would have imposed a lesser sentence than that called for under the Guidelines. Rodriguez has shown that this error had a substantial effect on his sentence. As a result, Rodriguez's sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. See Cruz, 418 F.3d at 485.
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.