
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julio GUZMAN, a/k/a Van, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-4769.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 29, 2005.
    Decided Aug. 18, 2005.
    
      Samuel John Randall, IV, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Julio Guzman was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Guzman to 120 months of imprisonment. The court also specified an identical alternate sentence of 120 months pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), vacated, - U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).

Guzman appeals, asserting that, pursuant to United States v. Booker, - U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because it was enhanced under the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines scheme based on facts that were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Although we agree that a Sixth Amendment violation occurred, we conclude that any error resulting from the sentence imposed by the district court is harmless. Id. at 769 (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court). Because the alternate sentence the district court pronounced pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2005), treating the sentencing guidelines as advisory only, was identical to the sentence imposed under the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines as they existed at that time, the mandatory application of the guidelines “did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992).

Accordingly, we affirm Guzman’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  