[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 19, 2005
No. 04-14761
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00160-CR-1-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 19, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Salvador Rodriguez appeals his 77-month sentence for illegal reentry into
the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. sections 1326(a) and
(b)(2). Rodriguez argues that the enhancements to his sentence based on his
previous convictions violated the Sixth Amendment. We affirm the sentence.
Because Rodriguez objected to the sentence enhancements in the district
court, we review the challenges to his sentence de novo. United States v. Sanchez,
269 F.3d 1250, 1272 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc). We will not reverse the district
court if any error was harmless. Id. An error is harmless if it did not affect the
substantial rights of the parties. United States v. Hernandez, 160 F.3d 661, 670
(11th Cir. 1998).
Rodriguez challenge to his sentence fails. In United States v. Booker, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed that the rule announced in Apprendi does not extend to
previous convictions. 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). The Sixth
Amendment was not violated, therefore, when the district court calculated the
guideline sentence and accounted for Rodriguez’s previous convictions.
Furthermore, any error committed by the district court in sentencing Rodriguez
under the guidelines, as mandatory, was harmless, because the district court stated
that were the guidelines not mandatory it would have imposed a sentence of 15
years’ imprisonment, more than twice that actually received by Rodriguez.
AFFIRMED.
2