United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40581
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL ANTHONY CASTANEDA, also known as
Tony Castaneda,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-10-1
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Anthony Castaneda appeals his sentence following his
guilty-plea convictions for conspiring to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute over 50 grams of methamphetamine and
using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug
trafficking offense. Castaneda asserts that the district court
erred in imposing a two-level enhancement under the Sentencing
Guidelines for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1,
based on a letter written by Castaneda to his codefendant. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40581
-2-
has not established that the district court erred in its
assessment. See United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 363 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 375 (2005).
Castaneda also contends that the district court should have
awarded him a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility under § 3E1.1. He has not established that the
district court’s denial of that reduction was “without
foundation.” United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th
Cir. 2003)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see
also United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th
Cir. 2005); § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4).
Castaneda asserts that he is entitled to resentencing under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),
because the district court made factual findings that led to
enhancement of the applicable guideline range. After Booker,
“[t]he sentencing judge is entitled to find by a preponderance of
the evidence all the facts relevant to the determination of a
Guideline sentencing range and all facts relevant to the
determination of a non-Guidelines sentence.” United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43
(2005). Therefore, Castaneda’s contention that the district
court was precluded from enhancing his sentence based on judge-
found facts is untenable.
AFFIRMED.