Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Manuel VILLA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-09
Citations: 153 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 04-41514
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Manuel VILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 153
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Manuel VILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41514.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Anthony P. Troiani, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hector Manuel Villa appeals from his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. Villa contends that he was sentenced in violation of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), when his sentence was enhanced for possession of a dangerous weapon and his role in the offense. Villa also contends that his sentence is unconstitutional because he was sentenced pursuant to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime.
The district court, however, opined that if the Guidelines were held unconstitutional, it would impose the same sentence. Therefore, the Government has carried its burden of establishing that the sentencing errors suffered by Villa were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, S.Ct. (Oct. 11, 2005) (No. 05-6242).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.