Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Artemio JAVIER GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-13
Citations: 259 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 07-40444
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Artemio JAVIER GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Artemio JAVIER GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40444
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 13, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Artemio Javier Gonzalez appeals the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for transporting unlawful aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1824. The district court departed upwardly from a range of 6 to 12 months to a sentence of 27 months, apparently based on prior arrests. As Gonzalez concedes, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Jones, 489 F.3d 679, 681 (5th Cir.2007).
It is plain error for a district court to depart upwardly based solely on a prior arrest record. Id. at 681; see also United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 434-37 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2958, 165 L.Ed.2d 970 (2006). Given the Government's concession of reversible plain error, we VACATE the sentence imposed and REMAND this matter for re-sentencing. We express no opinion on whether a non-guidelines sentence above the advisory range or an upward departure may be appropriate on some other basis.
Because this appeal has been expedited, our rules require issuance of the mandate forthwith automatically. See 5th Cir. R. 41.4. Thus, the motion for summary disposition and issuance of the mandate forthwith is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.