USA v. Gooden

Filing 920060110


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 _____________________ No. 04-40129 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY GOODEN, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-674-1 _________________________________________________________________ ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This court affirmed Corey Gooden's conviction and sentence. United States v. Gooden, 111 Fed. Appx. 297 (5th Cir. 2004). The January 10, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in the light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). United States, 125 S.Ct. 1612 (2005). Gooden v. We requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker. In his supplemental brief, Gooden argues that his sentence runs afoul of Booker because he was sentenced pursuant to 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * mandatory Guideline scheme found unconstitutional in Booker, and because his sentence was enhanced based on findings made by the district court in violation of the Sixth Amendment. He acknowledges that he did not raise any Booker-related arguments before the district court or on direct appeal. Instead, he raised the issue for the first time in his petition for a writ of certiorari. This court recently held that, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the court will not consider Bookerrelated arguments raised for the first time in a petition for a writ of certiorari. (5th Cir. 2005). Because Gooden did not raise his Booker-related arguments in the district court, we would have reviewed them for plain error had he raised them for the first time on direct appeal. United States United States v. Taylor, 409 F.3d 675, 676 v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 43 (2005). There is no plain error because, as Gooden concedes, there is no evidence in the record indicating that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under advisory sentencing guidelines. satisfy "the Because Gooden has not shown plain error, he cannot much more demanding standard for extraordinary circumstances, warranting review of an issue raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari". Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677. The fact that Gooden received a sentence in the middle of the guideline range does not support an inference that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence under advisory sentencing guidelines. 2 See United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 317 n.4 (5th Cir.) ("the fact that the sentencing judge imposed the minimum sentence under the Guideline range ... alone is no indication that the judge would have reached a different conclusion under an advisory scheme"), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 264 (2005). Gooden argues that he should not be required to make a showing of prejudice because the Booker error was structural or is the type of error that should be presumed prejudicial. foreclosed by Mares. This contention is See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 464 (2005); United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 194 (2005). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that nothing in the Supreme Court's Booker decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case. We therefore reinstate our judgment affirming Brooks's conviction and sentence. JUDGMENT REINSTATED. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?