Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Francisco MEDINA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-18
Citations: 177 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 05-20488
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Francisco MEDINA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Francisco MEDINA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-20488.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 18, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Ali Fazel, Scardino, Courtney & Fazel, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Javier Francisco Medina-Perez (Medina) appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to conspiracy to produce false identification documents; production of false identification documents; transfer of false identification documents; fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents; and aiding and abetting the same. Medina argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), when it increased his base offense level by nine levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(C), because the facts warranting the increase were not found by a jury and not admitted by him. As the Guidelines were only advisory when Medina was sentenced, the Sixth Amendment was not implicated when the district court increased his base offense level. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 245, 125 S.Ct. 738. Medina's alternative argument that the district court clearly erred when it applied § 2L1.2(b)(C)(2) is unavailing. The PSR established that the conspiracy went on for about 40 weeks and that the conspirators produced an average of seven documents a week during the course of the conspiracy, meaning that 280 documents were involved. This, combined with the forensic evidence that 578 names were retrieved from computers, does not support "a definite and firm conviction" that the district court made a mistake when it attributed more than 100 documents to Medina. See United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 248 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 164 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1020, 163 L.Ed.2d 865 (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.