Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Wayne KING, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 232 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 04-11477
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Wayne KING, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 232
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Wayne KING, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-11477
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 2, 2007.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Christopher R. Wolfe, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terry Wayne King, Jr., El Reno, OK, pro se.
Douglas C. Greene, Johnson, Vaughn & Heiskell, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terry Wayne King, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for bank larceny. He argues that the district court erred in denying a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility and that his sentence is unconstitutional under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Reviewing the district court's refusal to reduce King's offense level under a highly deferential standard, we hold that the court did not err in denying King's request for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir.2003). Because King denied relevant conduct at the sentencing hearing, the district court's decision was not "without foundation." See id.
King was sentenced pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in Booker. The Government concedes that the this issue was preserved through King's objection in the district court based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and that it cannot show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we VACATE King's sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.