Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne WETLESEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-01
Citations: 169 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 04-51107
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne WETLESEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne WETLESEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-51107.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 1, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Scott Peterson, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wayne Wetlesen appeals his sentence imposed pursuant to a plea of guilty to attempt to manufacture methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his case should be remanded for resentencing because the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.
By sentencing Wetlesen under a mandatory guidelines regime, the district court committed what this court refers to as Fanfan error. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir.2005). The Government concedes that Wetlesen preserved his Fanfan argument by raising an objection in the district court pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Given the district court's statement that it would impose the same sentence in the event the Guidelines were declared unconstitutional, the Government has carried its burden of demonstrating harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. See e.g., United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 314 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1097, 163 L.Ed.2d 911 (2006).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.