United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 29, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31001
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HURPE AUGUST MILES, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 5:04-CR-50028-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hurpe Miles appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea
conviction of conspiring to transport stolen goods in interstate
commerce. He asserts that because he admitted at rearraignment to
causing only $60,000 in loss, the district court’s factual finding
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-31001
-2-
that he was responsible for $100,010 in loss violated Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). At sentencing, Miles conceded
that he had admitted up to $90,000 in loss, so he has waived any
challenge to a loss amount up to $90,000. See United States v.
Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the guideline
range for $90,000 and $100,010 is the same, no Sixth Amendment
violation occurred, because the district court’s factual finding
did not increase the maximum sentence Miles faced. See United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, ___, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005).
Moreover, the district court’s statements at sentencing indicate
that any Booker error was harmless. See United States v. Pineiro,
410 F.3d 282, 284-85 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
Miles also asserts that the district court’s order that he pay
restitution of $100,010 violates the Sixth Amendment. Judicial
fact-finding supporting restitution orders does not violate the
Sixth Amendment. United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Because Miles has shown no reversible
error arising at his sentencing, the judgment is AFFIRMED.