Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul ALVARADO-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 136 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 04-41213
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul ALVARADO-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul ALVARADO-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41213.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 22, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
L. Aron Pena, Law Offices of L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raul Alvarado-Velasquez ("Alvarado") appeals the 37-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of one count of being found illegally in the United States following removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b).
Alvarado, relying on Blakely v. Washington, - U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), argues that the district court violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment by enhancing his sentence by 16 levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). The Sixth Amendment holding of Blakely applies to the federal sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Booker, - U.S.-,-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 746, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Because Alvarado did not raise his argument in the district court, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Our review of the record reveals no indication that the district court, sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one, would have reached a significantly different result as to Alvarado's sentence. See id. at 521. Because Alvarado cannot establish that his substantial rights were affected, he cannot establish plain error. See id. Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.