Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Francisco MATAMOROS-LARA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-21
Citations: 110 F. App'x 450
Docket Number: No. 04-40226
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Francisco MATAMOROS-LARA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 450–450

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Francisco MATAMOROS-LARA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40226.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 21, 2004.
Mitchel Neurock, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Stephen Robert Baxley, Baxley Law Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Francisco Matamoros-Lara appeals the sentence imposed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines following his conviction of concealing and transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. For the first time on appeal, Matamoros-Lara argues that he was sentenced in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as set out in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Matamoros-Lara's argument is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.2004)(holding that Blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines), petition for cert. filed (July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Matamoros-Lara's motion to abate the proceedings in his case is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.