Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-08
Citations: 133 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 04-41205
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 965–966

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41205.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 8, 2005.
Ernest Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Amy R. Blalock, Denise S. Benson, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Phillips pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm, a shotgun having a barrel length of less then 18 inches, a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Phillips was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Phillips now appeals, challenging only his sentence.
Citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Phillips argues that the district court erred when it enhanced his offense level by four pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) because the firearm was possessed in connection with another felony offense, the possession of methamphetamine. Under Booker, the judicially determined enhancement, made under a mandatory guideline regime, violated his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756.
Where, as here, a defendant has preserved a Booker issue in the district court, "we will ordinarily vacate the sentence and remand, unless we can say the error is harmless under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed, No. 04-9517 (U.S. March 31, 2005). The Government concedes that it cannot demonstrate that the Booker error is harmless because it cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that the mandatory nature of the guidelines did not contribute to the Phillips's sentence. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376-77 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we vacate Phillips's sentence and remand for resentencing. See id.
VACATE SENTENCE; REMAND FOR RESENTENCING.
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.