United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11435
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE ERIC CARDONA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-246
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pursuant to a plea agreement, George Eric Cardona pleaded
guilty to mail fraud and money laundering. He was sentenced to
75 months of imprisonment as to each count, to be served
concurrently, and to a three-year term of supervised release. In
his plea agreement, Cardona reserved the right to challenge his
sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Cardona argues that he is entitled to resentencing under
Booker because the district court enhanced his sentence based on
facts that were not found by a jury or proven beyond a reasonable
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-11435
-2-
doubt. Although Cardona was sentenced after the decision in
Booker, he contends that he was sentenced under a mandatory
guidelines scheme because this court in United States v. Mares,
402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005),
effectively made the Guidelines mandatory by requiring a district
court to make “specific finding[s]” when imposing a sentence
outside the 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.”
Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. Therefore, to the extent Cardona
contends that the district court was precluded from enhancing his
sentence based on facts that had not been either admitted by him
or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury, his argument is
untenable. Further, Cardona’s argument that this court’s
decision in Mares effectively made the Guidelines mandatory is
unavailing. In Mares, this court noted that the Booker Court
left intact 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), which requires a district court
to explain the reasons for imposing a particular sentence,
including one outside the guideline range. See Mares, 402 F.3d
at 519 n.8. Accordingly, Cardona’s sentence is AFFIRMED.