USA v. Romero-Flores, No. 05-40019 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 3, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40019 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIO ROMERO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo USDC No. 5:04-CR-1430-ALL -------------------Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Mario Romero-Flores appeals the sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction on two counts of smuggling aliens for financial gain. He contends that the district court committed error under United States v. Booker, 542 U.S. 220 (2005), when it sentenced him based on judicial fact-findings made in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment. * He also 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. contends that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines in calculating his sentence and that the court erred by imposing his sentence under the misapprehension that the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory. Romero-Flores is correct that the district court committed Sixth Amendment error under Booker when it enhanced his sentence based on factual determinations that he did not admit and that the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, as the government acknowledges, Romero-Flores preserved this issue by objecting to the sentence enhancement on Sixth Amendment grounds. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th Cir. 2005). When, as here, a Booker error has been preserved in the district court, we will ordinarily vacate the sentence and remand, unless [this court] can say the error is harmless under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th citation omitted). Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and The government concedes that it cannot show harmlessness in this case. The government cannot, therefore, meet its arduous burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sixth Amendment Booker error did not affect the sentence that [Romero-Flores] received. Pineiro, 410 F.3d at 285, 287. As we must remand this case for resentencing, we need not address 2 Romero-Flores s other arguments concerning the sentence enhancement. Romero-Flores also challenges the condition of his supervised release requiring that he cooperate with the probation officer in the collection of a DNA sample. direct appeal. This is not ripe for review on United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 9, 2006)(No. 8662). Accordingly, we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider this isue. SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
