                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                                                      F I L E D
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                    November 15, 2005

                             _______________________              Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                          Clerk
                                   No. 03-50889
                             _______________________

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                     versus

                                  BRENT HUGHES,


                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                          No. SA-03-CR-52
________________________________________________________________

          ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

              This   court    affirmed   the   judgment   of   conviction     and

sentence of Brent Hughes.           See United States v. Hughes, No. 03-

50889 (Oct. 21, 2004).         The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for

further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738 (2005).         See Hughes v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1027

(2005).       We requested and received supplemental letter briefs

addressing the impact of Booker.

              The    Government    concedes    that   Hughes   preserved      his



      *
       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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
sentencing challenge before the district court, and that the error

was not harmless.   Accordingly, Hughes’s conviction is AFFIRMED,

and his sentence is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion and Booker.




                                2
