United States v. Meza ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 20, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41157
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ALDO MEZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-02-CR-445-ALL
--------------------
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:**
This court affirmed the sentence of Luis Aldo Meza. United
States v. Meza, No. 02-41157 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2003)
(unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for
further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125
S. Ct. 738 (2005). Meza v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 984 (2005).
*
This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C.
§ 46(d).
**
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-41157
-2-
This court requested and received supplemental letter briefs
addressing the impact of Booker.
Meza contends that he is entitled to resentencing because
the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines prohibited by Booker.
This court will not consider a Booker-related challenge raised
for the first time in a petition for certiorari absent
extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Taylor,
409 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). Meza identifies “no evidence
in the record suggesting that the district court would have
imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory guidelines system.”
Id. (citing United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez, 405 F.3d 260,
261 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (June 27, 2005)
(No. 05-5220); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th
Cir.), petition for cert. filed (March 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517)).
Meza argues that he need not show prejudice because the
error was structural. This court has recently held otherwise.
See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.
2005). He also argues that this court wrongly decided Mares;
this argument is unavailing. See United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d
635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993). Meza raises this latter argument to
preserve it for possible further review.
Because Meza has not demonstrated even plain error, “it is
obvious that the much more demanding standard for extraordinary
circumstances, warranting review of an issue raised for the first
No. 02-41157
-3-
time in a petition for certiorari, cannot be satisfied.” See
Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677.
Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision
requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we
therefore reinstate our judgment affirming Meza’s conviction and
sentence.
AFFIRMED.