Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Broderick BRADSHAW, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 135 F. App'x 760
Docket Number: No. 04-41046
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Broderick BRADSHAW, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 135
Pages: 760–761

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Broderick BRADSHAW, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41046.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 22, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Jose I. Gonzalez-Falla, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Broderick Bradshaw appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to use of a communication facility in committing a drug offense. He was sentenced to 34 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. Bradshaw argues for the first time on appeal and pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that his sentence is illegal.
Bradshaw has not established plain error with regard to his Blakely and Booker claim because he has not established that being sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme affected his substantial rights. The record does not indicate that the district court "would have reached a significantly different result" under a sentencing scheme in which the Guidelines were advisory only. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Accordingly, the district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.