United States v. Helton
This text of 161 F. App'x 377 (United States v. Helton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 4, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 04-40225
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JAMES HELTON, also known as Defendant #6,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
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 Defendant-
Appellant Helton’s conviction and sentence. See United States v.
Helton, No. 04-40225, 115 Fed. Appx. 687 (5th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam) (unpublished). Following our judgment, Helton filed a
petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted Helton’s
petition for certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
-1- case to this court for further consideration in light of United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We now reconsider the
matter in light of Booker and decide to reinstate our previous
judgment affirming Helton’s conviction and sentence.
Helton raised a Booker-related challenge to his sentence for
the first time on direct appeal. Because Helton never raised a
Booker objection in trial court, however, Appellant’s claim would
fail under the plain-error test discussed in United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005). There is no
indication that the district court, if given the opportunity to
treat the guidelines as advisory only, would have imposed a lesser
sentence.
For the reasons stated above, our prior disposition remains in
effect, and we REINSTATE OUR EARLIER JUDGMENT affirming Helton’s
conviction and sentence.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
161 F. App'x 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-helton-ca5-2006.