Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando LUGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-13
Citations: 175 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 05-40699
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando LUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 688–688

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando LUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40699.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 13, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Liana Edisa Gonzales, Law Office of Liana E. Gonzales, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Armando Lugo appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Lugo challenges a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the sentencing court's finding that Lugo testified falsely at a suppression hearing. Disagreeing with Lugo's contention that he preserved this argument in the district court, we review the claim for plain error and find none. United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 362 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 375, 163 L.Ed.2d 163 (2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).
Lugo correctly points out that the district court plainly erred in sentencing him under a mandatory guideline system; however, he has failed to show that his sentence would have been "significantly different" if he had been sentenced "under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one." Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.