Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra Luz CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-17
Citations: 141 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 04-40120
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra Luz CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra Luz CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40120.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Arturo Villarreal, III, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Luz Castro appeals from her conviction for 15 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent income tax returns. For the first time on appeal, Castro argues that her sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the facts underlying her sentencing adjustments were not proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by her .and because the district court utilized a mandatory sentencing scheme rather than an advisory one. Both of her challenges fail to meet the plain-error standard because she has not shown that the error affected her substantial rights. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.