Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. George Alberto Varela-Medina

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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-
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 25, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-40045
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
GEORGE ALBERTO VARELA-MEDINA,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern 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 Varela-Medina’s conviction and sentence, and found no
error in interpretation or application of the Sentencing
Guidelines. See United States v. Varela-Medina, No. 04-40045, 117
Fed. Appx. 960 (5th Cir. 2004)(unpublished). Following our

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
judgment, Varela-Medina filed a petition for certiorari. The
Supreme Court granted Varela-Medina’s petition for certiorari,
vacated our judgment, and remanded the 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 Varela-
Medina’s conviction and sentence.
Appellant raised a Booker-related objection for the first time
on direct appeal. Because Varela-Medina did not raise a Booker
objection in trial court, however, the claim would fail under the
plain-error test discussed in United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,
520-22 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court sentenced Varela-Medina
at the bottom of the Guideline range but gave no indication that it
would have imposed a lesser sentence had the Guidelines been
advisory. See United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310 (5th Cir.
2005).
Varela-Medina also asks us to reconsider our earlier
conclusion that the trial court did not plainly err in imposing the
2L1.2(b)(1)(B) enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. We
fully considered Varela-Medina’s argument in his first appeal and
decline to reconsider it.
For the reasons stated above, our prior disposition remains in
effect, and we REINSTATE OUR EARLIER JUDGMENT affirming Varela-
Medina’s conviction and sentence.

-- 2 of 2 --