Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando GARCES, also known as Antonio Moreno, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 209 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 05-41396
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando GARCES, also known as Antonio Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 436–436

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando GARCES, also known as Antonio Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41396
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Henri Eugene Nicolas, Jr., Rodriguez & Nicolas, Brownsville, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Armando Garces appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because his sentence was based on facts found by the sentencing court by a preponderance of the evidence. He also contends that he was sentenced under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines contrary to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Garces was sentenced under the post-Booker advisory guidelines scheme which requires the sentencing court to calculate the guideline range in the same manner as before Booker and to make factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 797-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2884, 165 L.Ed.2d 908 (2006). Garces misunderstands both Booker and his own post-Booker sentencing. Consequently, his appeal presents no issue relevant to his sentence. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.