United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40699
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARMANDO LUGO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:03-CR-204-ALL
--------------------
Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Clement, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armando Lugo appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Lugo challenges
a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the
sentencing court’s finding that Lugo testified falsely at a
suppression hearing. Disagreeing with Lugo’s contention that he
preserved this argument in the district court, we review the
claim for plain error and find none. United States v. Holmes,
406 F.3d 337, 362 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 375
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40699
-2-
(2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
Lugo correctly points out that the district court plainly
erred in sentencing him under a mandatory guideline system;
however, he has failed to show that his sentence would have been
“significantly different” if he had been sentenced “under an
advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one.” Mares, 402 F.3d at
521. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. United
States v. Villaneuva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 268 (2005).
AFFIRMED.