United States v. Compean , 214 F. App'x 428 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20745
Summary Calendar
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEONARDO COMPEAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-137-1
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leonardo Compean appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of
marijuana, money laundering, aiding and abetting, and possession
of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
Compean’s first two arguments, that the district court erred by
failing to adequately inquire into his eligibility for appointed
counsel and that his waiver of counsel was not knowing and
voluntary, are without merit because Compean was already
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20745
-2-
represented by retained counsel at the sentencing hearing but
opted instead to represent himself.
Compean’s reliance on United States v. Reyes-Celistino, 443
F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2006), to support his argument that he did not
waive his right to raise a claim under United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), in the plea agreement is also unavailing.
Compean was sentenced in August 2005, after the Supreme Court’s
opinion in Booker and under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
system now in effect. Thus the district court applied the
Sentencing Guidelines in an advisory way, and no error occurred.
Finally, Compean’s contention that the district court’s
application of the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory violated due
process is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States
v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED