United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41272
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADALBERTO BARRAGAN-ALVAREZ, also known as Ignacio Ortiz,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02-CR-107-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adalberto Barragan-Alvarez (a/k/a Ignacio Ortiz) appeals the
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to an indictment charging that he possessed with the intent to
distribute approximately 37 kilograms of cocaine. Barragan-
Alvarez argues that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment, as
illustrated in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),
because the district court enhanced his sentence based on a
finding that he obstructed justice. Although he admits that he
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-41272
-2-
gave two different names to authorities, he argues that he never
admitted that his conduct qualified as obstruction of justice.
He also argues that the court’s consideration of the possibility
that he was engaged in another drug offense for which the charges
were dismissed violated the Sixth Amendment and Booker.
Barragan-Alvarez acknowledges that he is raising these arguments
for the first time on appeal and that our review is thus for
plain error. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th
Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-
9517).
Assuming, arguendo, that Barragan-Alvarez has established
Booker error with respect to either of his claims, he must
nevertheless show that the court’s error affected his substantial
rights. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520. To make such a showing,
Barragan-Alvarez must show that the error “affected the outcome
of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 734 (1993); see also United States v. Valenzuela-
Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th cir. 2005). Barragan-Alvarez has
not made such a showing. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.