United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 9, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30739
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
EMANUEL WILSON
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:03-CR-50115-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Emanuel Wilson appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. He argues
(1) for the first time on appeal and pursuant to Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), that his sentence is illegal
and (2) pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354
(2004), that the district court’s reliance on his co-defendant’s
out-of-court statement to ascertain drug quantity violated his
rights under the Confrontation Clause.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-30739
-2-
Wilson has not established plain error with regard to his
Blakely claim because he has not established that his sentence,
imposed under the mandatory guidelines scheme, affected his
substantial rights. The record does not indicate that the
district court “would have reached a significantly different
result” under a sentencing scheme in which the guidelines
were advisory only. See United States v. Mares, __F.3d__,
No. 03-31035, 2005 WL 503715, at **8-9 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2005).
Wilson’s argument pursuant to Crawford that his Sixth
Amendment rights were violated at sentencing is foreclosed by
United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1999),
which held that “there is no Confrontation Clause right at
sentencing.”
AFFIRMED.