
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo DE LA GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40971.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Arturo De La Garza was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of inducing an alien to enter the United States, bringing an alien into the United States, and transporting an alien within the United States. He argues that the sentences imposed in his case are unconstitutional and should be vacated because they were imposed under the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

By sentencing De La Garza under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime, the district court committed what this court refers to as Fanfan error. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir.2005). The Government concedes that De La Garza preserved his Fanfan claim for appellate review. A Fanfan error is not structural error. Thus, this court reviews the district court’s actions for harmless error. See id.

At De La Garza’s sentencing hearing, the district court noted that if the United States Sentencing Guidelines were held unconstitutional it would impose the same term of imprisonment it had previously imposed. In light of that statement, the Government has carried its burden of establishing that the district court’s sentencing error was harmless. See id. at 464; United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 314-15 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 810, 163 L.Ed.2d 637 (2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1097, 163 L.Ed.2d 911 (2006).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     