Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demond Jered FOBBS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 136 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 04-30535
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demond Jered FOBBS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demond Jered FOBBS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30535.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 22, 2005.
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Demond Jered Fobbs pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced as a career offender to a 300-month term of imprisonment. Fobbs argues on appeal that his enhanced sentence is unconstitutional in light of Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We review this argument for plain error because Fobbs did not make a Sixth Amendment objection in the district court. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).
As Fobbs does not suggest that his sentence was enhanced based on any fact other than a prior conviction, he has not shown that his sentence violates Booker or the Sixth Amendment. See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 750, 769. We agree with Fobbs that the district court erred when it sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory guidelines system. Id. at 750, 768-69. Nevertheless, as the record does not suggest in any way that the district court would have imposed a different sentence had it been aware that the sentencing guidelines are merely advisory, Fobbs has not met his burden of establishing plain error. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.