Court Opinion

ID: 39155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 20:20:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:11.984671
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                                                F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                August 16, 2005
                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                          _____________________             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                              No. 04-50476
                          _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

                                 versus

ADAN NARANJO-VELASQUEZ,

                                                  Defendant - Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

            Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Western District of Texas
                    USDC No. 3:03-CR-2055-ALL-DB
_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     In this appeal, the Government apparently concedes that Naranjo-

Velasquez can satisfy the third prong of the plain error standard of

review by showing that the district court felt constrained by the

Sentencing Guidelines and most likely would have imposed a lower

sentence under an advisory guidelines regime. We find nothing in the

record that disturbs the Government’s representation.      Accordingly,

the sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing in

accordance with United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

                                                   VACATED and REMANDED.

     *
       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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.