United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20357
c/w No. 05-20503
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANH TUAN TRAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-433-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anh Tuan Tran appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea convictions for possession with the intent to
distribute a controlled substance and being a felon in possession
of a firearm. Tran argues that the district court erred in
sentencing him based on additional amounts of controlled
substances not charged in the indictment and not admitted by him
during his plea colloquy. He argues that because the additional
amounts of controlled substances were not proved beyond a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20357
c/w No. 05-20503
-2-
reasonable doubt, his sentence was erroneous under United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Tran was sentenced after Booker was decided and therefore he
was not subjected to a mandatory sentencing regime. “Booker
contemplates that, with the mandatory use of the Guidelines
excised, the Sixth Amendment will not impede a sentencing judge
from finding all facts relevant to sentencing.” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2884 (2006). “The 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.” Id.
Such is the case “even where calculation of the appropriate range
requires the court to take into account facts not proven to a
jury.” Id. Accordingly, Tran’s argument lacks merit.
AFFIRMED.