FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

May 26, 2005

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

	Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANIEL LOZANO-MORALES,

	Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-2163
(D. New Mexico)
(D.Ct. No. CR-03-359-MCA)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, LUCERO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

	Mr. Lozano‑Morales pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326(a)(1), (2), and (b)(2).  He filed a motion for a downward departure based on cultural assimilation, delay in prosecution, and family ties and responsibilities.  The district court denied his motion and sentenced him at 57 months imprisonment, the bottom of the guideline range.  Mr. Lozano‑Morales appealed and we held that (1) he waived his separation of powers claim by pleading guilty (i.e., his argument that the prosecutor usurped the district court’s sentencing power by delaying his federal prosecution until the completion of his state sentence, thereby preventing the district court from sentencing him concurrently), and (2) we lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary decision to deny his motion for downward departure on the ground that his circumstances did not warrant the departure.  See United States v. Lozano-Morales, No. 03-2163, 2004 WL 2677687 (10th Cir. Nov. 24, 2004).  Mr. Lozano‑Morales petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.  The Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).  For the following reasons, we reinstate our prior decision and affirm Mr. Lozano‑Morales’ sentence.   
        As we held in United States v. Sierra‑Castillo, our lack of jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward is not impacted by Booker: 
Booker excised the statutory provision of the Sentencing Reform Act providing for the standard of review of sentences on appeal, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), but left intact the section providing for appellate review of sentences, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).  See Booker,125 S. Ct. at 765 (noting that § 3742(a) continues to provide for appellate review of Guidelines sentences).  Pursuant to § 3742(a), this court therefore continues to have the same jurisdiction to review Guidelines sentences as it had before the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker.  See Doe, 398 F.3d at 1256; see also United States v. Ruiz‑Alonso, 397 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir.2005) (applying § 3742(b)). 
405 F.3d 932, 936 n.3 (10th Cir. 2005).  In other words, Booker notwithstanding, we still lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary decision to deny a motion for a downward departure on the ground that a defendant’s circumstances do not warrant the departure.  Id. at 936.  Moreover, the discretionary decision not to depart downward does not involve judicial fact finding that offends the Sixth Amendment. 
        Nevertheless, we do review  Mr. Lozano‑Morales’ sentence in light of Booker’s remedial holding.  Mr. Lozano‑Morales did not raise United States v. Blakely, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), or Booker in the district court or in his initial appeal.  Thus, we review the district court’s mandatory application of the guidelines for plain error.  Sierra‑Castillo, 405 F.3d at 941.  Although Mr. Lozano‑Morales was sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines range, he does not satisfy the fourth prong of plain error review because “his sentence is consistent with [the] national norm and there is no record evidence to support a lower sentence.”  United States v. Gonzalez‑Huerth, 403 F.3d 727, 738‑39 (10th Cir. 2005). 
        Accordingly, we REINSTATE our prior decision holding that we lack jurisdiction over the two issues Mr. Lozano‑Morales initially raised on appeal.  The sentence imposed by the district court remains undisturbed.
						Entered by the Court:

						Terrence L. O’Brien
						United States Circuit Judge