F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 19, 2006
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 05-2002
v. (D.C. No. CR-03-1890 JB)
(D .N.M .)
JUA N G AB RIEL M OR ALES-OR TIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
OR DER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before KELLY, M cKA Y, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Juan Gabriel M orales-O rtiz challenges his sentence on direct appeal.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, M orales-Ortiz pled guilty to an information
stipulating that he conspired to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. His plea agreement referenced a total drug
quantity of two kilograms. The district court sentenced M orales-Ortiz on
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and
judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 (eff. Dec. 1, 2006) and 10th Cir. R.
32.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2007).
December 20, 2004, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, and imposed a sentence
of 57 months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range.
M orales-Ortiz does not challenge the validity of his conviction or the
calculation of his Guidelines range, but asks this court to remand for resentencing
in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005). 1 He concedes that our decision in United States v. Gonzalez-
Huerta, 403 F.3d 727 (2005), controls. In that case, we held that plain error
review is appropriate when, as here, the district court relied solely on admitted
facts and Booker error was not alleged below . Id. at 732. “Plain error occurs
when there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and
which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted). M orales-Ortiz admits in his brief that
“[h]e cannot [show plain error] on the present record,” but “raises the issues
solely to preserve them for Supreme Court review.” W e are bound by Gonzalez-
Huerta and must affirm.
M orales-Ortiz’s appeal is DENIED and the sentencing determination of the
1
Although the government was within its rights to seek enforcement of
M orales-Ortiz’s plea w aiver, it has opted to argue this case on the merits. As
such, we decline to decide the case on that ground. See United States v. Clark,
415 F.3d 1234, 1238 n.1 (10th Cir. 2005).
-2-
district court is AFFIRM ED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-