Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicolas SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-07
Citations: 166 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 05-10027
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicolas SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 166
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicolas SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10027.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 7, 2006.
Susan B. Cowger, Sarah Ruth Saldana, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Nicolas Sanchez-Garcia appeals from his sentence following his jury-verdict conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after a previous removal. He contends that the district court erred by sentencing him under the mandatory sentencing regime held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Examination of the record shows that Sanchez-Garcia's contention is correct. The government concedes that Sanchez-Garcia preserved this argument in the district court and that it cannot show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we VACATE Sanchez-Garcia's sentence, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 n. 9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). We therefore need not consider Sanchez-Garcia's remaining challenges to his sentence. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n. 62 (5th Cir.2005).
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.