Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard SCHEER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 05-10564
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard SCHEER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard SCHEER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10564.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
Susan B. Cowger, Larry Edward Jarrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas A. Morris, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Seheer appeals his 120-month sentence following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He seeks to challenge his sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Seheer first avers that the district court erred by not incorporating, through "reverse incorporation," the Ex Post Facto Clause into the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He contends that such incorporation would protect defendants like him, whose offenses were committed prior to Booker, by prohibiting the court from imposing a greater sentence under the now advisory guideline scheme than was permitted under the mandatory guideline scheme.
This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir.2005).
Seheer makes the related arguments that the district court violated his right to "fair notice under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment" by enhancing his sentence based on facts that were not charged in the indictment and were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Seheer contends that the remedial portion of Booker's holding may not be applied in his case without violating the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses. Seheer thus argues that the district court should have applied the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory in his case but should not have enhanced his sentence based on facts that were not charged in the indictment and were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Seheer recognizes that this court has rejected these arguments.
Scheer's arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.) (the "sentencing judge is entitled to find by a preponderance of the evidence all facts relevant to the determination of a Guideline sentencing range and all facts relevant to the determination of a non-Guideline sentence"), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005); see also Austin, 432 F.3d at 599-600. 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.