Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo ARAUGO-GUTIERREZ, also known as Hugo Alexander Araujo, also known as Hugo Gomez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 225 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 06-40987
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo ARAUGO-GUTIERREZ, also known as Hugo Alexander Araujo, also known as Hugo Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo ARAUGO-GUTIERREZ, also known as Hugo Alexander Araujo, also known as Hugo Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40987.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 2, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District Of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District Of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hugo Araugo-Gutierrez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180, 187 (5th Cir.1992), which held that hearsay is admissible for sentencing purposes, including corroborated out-of-court statements by unidentified confidential informants, and thus that its admission does not violate due process or the right to confrontation. Araugo-Gutierrez also raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), which held that, after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the sentencing court may still find all facts relevant to sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.