Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel HERNANDEZ-CARRANZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-25
Citations: 164 F. App'x 480
Docket Number: No. 04-41576
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel HERNANDEZ-CARRANZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 480–481

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel HERNANDEZ-CARRANZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41576.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 25, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Hernandez-Carranza ("Hernandez") appeals the 52-month sentence im posed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez argues that his sentence is illegal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines.
The erroneous application of the guidelines as mandatory is technically a "Fan-fan error." United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 464, 163 L.Ed.2d 352 (2005); See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 750, 768-69. The Government concedes that Hernandez preserved his Fanfan claim for appeal and that the issue is reviewed for harmless error. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.2005). The Government contends that harmless error is shown by the imposition of a "reasonable" sentence in the middle of the guidelines range. However, the Government does not carry its arduous burden of showing that the district court would not have sentenced Hernandez differently under an advisory guidelines system. See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284-85 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir.2005) (Booker error). We therefore we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with Booker.
For the first time on appeal, Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional. As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which this court must follow "unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it." United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir.) (quotation marks omitted), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 253, 163 L.Ed.2d 231 (2005). The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
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.