Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ALPHONSO ESCAMILLA, Jr., also know as "Wawa," Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 126 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 04-40769
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ALPHONSO ESCAMILLA, Jr., also know as “Wawa,” Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ALPHONSO ESCAMILLA, Jr., also know as “Wawa,” Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40769.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 20, 2005.
Heather Harris Rattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
John Davidson Nation, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Alphonso Escamilla, Jr., appeals the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense methamphetamine and marijuana. Escamilla argues that the district court plainly erred in sentencing him under the Sentencing Guidelines in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He argues that his Sixth Amendment right was violated because his sentence was enhanced based on facts which he did not admit were true.
Escamilla has not demonstrated that the district court would have imposed a different or a lesser sentence if it had been guided by the Booker holding. Thus, Escamilla has failed to show that the district court plainly erred in imposing his sentence. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-522 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -,-L.Ed.2d-, No. 04-9517 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005). The sentenced 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.