Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry DECKARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-22
Citations: 156 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 04-40150
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry DECKARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 628–628

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry DECKARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40150
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 22, 2005.
Lisa G. Flournoy, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Evelyn Graham Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
The captioned case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States in the wake of its opinion in United States v. Booker. On remand, we have reviewed the supplemental filings of the parties, reconsidered the facts and applicable law in fight of Booker and its progeny in both the Supreme Court and this circuit, and conclude that, when we review Deckard's post-Booker challenge under the applicable plain error standard, he has failed to demonstrate entitlement to have his sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
The government is likely correct that, as Deckard failed to mount a Sixth Amendment challenge to the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, and raising it for the first time in his petition for certiorari, we should not consider it. We nevertheless do so, albeit under plain error. We are satisfied that if any such error exists, it would be harmless, given the district court's original sentencing. Even though the Guidelines were treated as mandatory, the sentence (which Deckard did not directly appeal) was correctly calculated and was facially reasonable. More importantly, Deckard has not and cannot demonstrate any likelihood that, were we to remand for resentencing, the district court would impose a lesser sentence when treating the Guidelines as advisory only. Thus any plain error was clearly harmless and Deckard's substantial rights unaffected by the sentence that we perceive as reasonable.
Deckard's conviction and sentence are, in all respects,
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.
. 543 U.S. 220 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).