Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Moreno SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-16
Citations: 241 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 06-41117
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Moreno SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Moreno SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41117
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 16, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Vance David Patón, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed at resentencing for his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. This court previously vacated Sanchez's sentence and ordered resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Sanchez contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction with regard to the commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He concedes, however, that his argument is foreclosed and raises it only to preserve it for further review. The government moves for summary affirmance on the ground that the only issue raised on appeal is foreclosed.
"On a second appeal following remand, the only issue for consideration is whether the court below reached its final decree in due pursuance of [this court's] previous opinion and mandate." Burroughs v. F.F.P. Operating Partners, 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir.1995). In the prior appeal in this case, we limited the scope of the remand to resentencing in light of Booker. Because the sole issue Sanchez raises on appeal is beyond the scope of review, we decline to consider it.
The government's motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The government's alternative request for extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.