Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Humberto GARCIA-TOSCANO, also known as Humberto Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-27
Citations: 388 F. App'x 414
Docket Number: No. 09-40420
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Humberto GARCIA-TOSCANO, also known as Humberto Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 414–415

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Humberto GARCIA-TOSCANO, also known as Humberto Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-40420
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 27, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Scott Sullivan, Esq., Law Offices of J. Scott Sullivan, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Humberto Garcia-Toscana (Garcia) challenges the 360-month sentence he received following his conviction by jury for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession with the intent to distribute more than 100 but less than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A), engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B), and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Garcia argues that his sentence is invalid because it was imposed under the formerly mandatory version of the Guidelines, based on facts that were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury. He also contends that the district court erred in enunciating an alternate sentence.
Garcia's assertion of sentencing error is meritorious. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He preserved this error by raising an objection to his sentence grounded in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). See United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, (5th Cir.2005). When, as is the case here, a Booker error has been preserved in the district court, we "will ordinarily vacate the sentence and remand, unless [this court] can say the error is harmless under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Government has not met its "arduous" burden of demonstrating "beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sixth Amendment Booker error did not affect the sentence that [Garcia] received." Id. at 285, 287. Further, it would not be appropriate for us to impose the alternate sentence articulated by the district court. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 233 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Adair, 436 F.3d 520, 524, 527-29 (5th Cir.2006). Consequently, Garcia's sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. His convictions are 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.