United States v. Williams , 204 F. App'x 484 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 8, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
_____________________
No. 03-30868
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SAMMIE L. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CR-30006-ALL
__________________
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed Appellant
Williams’s conviction and sentence. See United States v.
Williams, No. 03-30868, 113 Fed. Appx. 620 (5th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam) (unpublished). Following our judgment, the defendant
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
timely petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari
alleging for the first time in his petition that the use of the
mandatory Sentencing Guidelines violated his Sixth Amendment
rights. The Supreme Court granted the writ, vacated defendant’s
sentence, and remanded to this court for consideration of
defendant’s sentence in light of its decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We now reconsider the matter and
decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Williams’s
conviction and sentence.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider a
defendant’s Booker-related claims presented for the first time in
a petition for writ of certiorari. United States v. Taylor, 409
F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). Had Williams raised his Booker-
related claims in his initial appellate brief, this court would
have reviewed the argument for plain error. Id. at 677.
Williams concedes that he cannot show that any error affected his
substantial rights, as is required under our circuit’s plain
error review. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22
(5th Cir. 2005). Because Williams fails plain error review, he
also fails to show extraordinary circumstances, which is a more
demanding standard. Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677.
2
Williams's structural-error and presumptive-prejudice
contentions are also foreclosed. See United States v.
Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005); United States
v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005).
For the reasons stated above, our prior disposition remains
in effect and we REINSTATE OUR EARLIER JUDGMENT affirming
Williams’s conviction and sentence.
3