
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Victor TORRES, also known as Jose Victor Torres-Valles, also known as Jose Victor Torres-Baez, also known as Heriberto Ochoa-Gomez, also known as Jose Feliciano Perez-Mesa, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-20015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant, Jose Victor Torres (“Torres”). United States v. Torres, 202 Fed.Appx. 883 (5th Cir.2006). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of Lopez v. Gonzales, — U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 625,166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006). Ochoar-Perez v. United States, — U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 1263, 167 L.Ed.2d 66 (2007). Following the Supreme Court’s remand, we requested and received supplemental letter briefs from both parties with respect to the impact of Lopez.

The Government concedes, and we agree that, in the light of Lopez, the district court erred by enhancing Torres’s sentence on the basis of his Texas convictions for possession of methamphetamine and for possession of heroin. Torres remains in custody in federal prison, with a projected release date of June 4, 2007. Accordingly, the appeal is not moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381 (5th Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Torres’s conviction, VACATE his sentence, and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with Lopez. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     