United States v. Ray , 196 F. App'x 313 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10159
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEKEMA JABBAR RAY, also known as Kemo,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-41-28
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lekema Jabbar Ray appeals the sentence imposed following the
entry of his guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to distribute,
possess with intent to distribute, and manufacture more than 50
grams of cocaine base. Ray was sentenced to 135 months of
imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
Ray, who was sentenced after the Supreme Court issued its
opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), asserts
that because the district court sentenced him within the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10159
-2-
sentencing guidelines range, the district court treated the
Guidelines as mandatory in violation of Booker. In addition to
considering the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
district courts must consider the applicable sentencing
guidelines range when sentencing defendants in cases that arise
after Booker. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Further, following
Booker, sentences are reviewed for reasonableness. Id. at 518.
A sentence within the applicable guidelines range, like Ray’s, is
presumed to be reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d
551, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2006).
Ray also asserts that this court’s decision in Mares is
erroneous. Ray’s challenge to Mares is unavailing. One panel of
this court may not overrule or ignore a prior panel decision.
United States v. Walker, 302 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2002).
Ray further asserts that sentencing him under the belief
that the Guidelines were mandatory constitutes a structural
error. The record demonstrates that the district court did not
sentence Ray under the belief that the Guidelines were mandatory.
Additionally, a Booker error is not structural error. United
States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 n.9 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 194 (2005).
AFFIRMED.