United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 20, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-41190
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FIDEL GARZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:06-CR-223-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fidel Garza appeals the 120-month sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. Garza asserts that he was deprived of due process and his
right to a jury trial because he was sentenced based on findings
not admitted by him and not determined by a jury contrary to the
holdings in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Blakely
v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000). He asserts that his rights under the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments were violated. A district court can make
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-41190
-2-
all factual findings necessary to determine a post-Booker
sentence based on the preponderance of the evidence and such
findings do not violate the Sixth Amendment. United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Mares also implicitly
rejected any claim based on the Fifth Amendment. Id.
Garza also contends that the district court improperly
calculated the applicable guideline range for his case. Garza
bases his assertions on misstatements of the district court’s
consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines. To the extent that
Garza is attempting to raise a challenge to the guideline
calculations that is distinct from the constitutional argument
noted above, he has not explained why the district court’s
calculations were incorrect and thus has failed to adequately
brief any such argument. Counsel’s brief need not be liberally
construed to find such an argument. See Beasley v. McCotter, 798
F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.