Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Porfirio ROCHA, also known as Edgar Porfirio-Rocha, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 135 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 03-51161
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Porfirio ROCHA, also known as Edgar Porfirio-Rocha, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 135
Pages: 698–700

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Porfirio ROCHA, also known as Edgar Porfirio-Rocha, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-51161.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Walter Mabry Reaves, Jr., Law Offices of Walter Reaves, West, TX, for for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Porfirio Rocha appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Finding no error, we affirm.
Rocha's first argument is that the district court erred in applying the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career offender enhancement to him based on a prior conviction for sexual assault of a minor. Rocha contends that the conviction was actually for statutory rape, which, according to Rocha, is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 4B1.1. Whatever the merits of his argument, Rocha waived the issue by failing to reurge it at the second sentencing hearing and by conceding that he was a career offender. See United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir.1995). Unlike forfeited issues, which are reviewed for plain error, waived issues are completely unreviewable. Id. Even if we were to review for plain error, Rocha's claim would fail because he has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Leonard, 157 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir.1998).
We likewise reject Rocha's argument that, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), which was extended to the federal guidelines by United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Edüd 621 (2005), the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on the court's findings regarding drug quantity and Rocha's role as a leader. As Rocha did not raise this issue in the district court, we review his sentence for plain error. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).
The record is devoid of any indication that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence under an advisory as opposed to a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. See id. at 521-22. Accordingly, Rocha cannot show that the sentence affected his substantial rights. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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.