United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
In the May 31, 2005
United States Court of Appeals Charles R. Fulbruge III
for the Fifth Circuit Clerk
_______________
m 03-51205
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
CHARLES PHILLIP SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
m 4:03-CR-165-ALL-H
______________________________
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).
Circuit Judges.
“An appellate court may not correct an er-
PER CURIAM:* ror the defendant failed to raise in the district
court unless there is ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain,
This court affirmed Charles Smith’s convic- and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Id.
tion and sentence. United States v. Smith, 110 (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S.
Fed. Appx. 380 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). 625, 631 (2002)). The government acknowl-
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for edges that there is plain error, so the first two
further consideration in light of United States prongs are satisfied.
v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Smith v.
United States, 125 S. Ct. 1091 (2005). We re- With regard to the third prong, under Mar-
quested and received supplemental letter briefs es, “the defendant rather than the government
addressing the impact of Booker. bears the burden of persuasion with respect to
prejudice.” Mares, 402 F.3d at 521 (citing
Smith claims there is error under Booker United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734
because his sentencing guideline range was in- (1993)). To show that his substantial rights
creased by attributing to him the sale of 340.2 are affected, Smith must “point[] to . . . evi-
grams of cocaine; he contends he was only dence in the record suggesting that the district
bragging of such a sale and that he never ac- court would have imposed a lesser sentence
tually sold such a quantity. He contends this is under an advisory guidelines system.” United
Booker error because the fact of the sale was States v. Taylor, No. 03-10167, 2005 U.S.
found by the district court rather than being App. LEXIS 8701, at *4 (5th Cir. May 17,
admitted to by Smith or found by a jury. 2005) (per curiam) (citations omitted). In oth-
er words, “the pertinent question is whether
Although Smith did object to the court’s [the defendant] demonstrated that the sentenc-
inclusion of the 340.2 grams, he did not raise ing judgeSSsentencing under an advisory
a Sixth Amendment objection or complain that scheme rather than a mandatory oneSSwould
the quantity must be decided by a jury if not have reached a significantly different result.”
admitted to by the defendant. Smith and the Mares, 402 F.3d at 521.
government correctly agree the plain error
standard of review applies because Smith did Smith has presented nothing to satisfy that
not preserve a Sixth Amendment error. See burden. Accordingly, the judgments of con-
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 viction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
(5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2