Pursuant to the order of the United States Supreme Court in Beltran-Hernandez v. U.S., — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1053, 160 L.Ed.2d 1043 (2005), vacating our judgment and remanding this case, we review for error under United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because BeltranHernandez failed to raise a Booker-type issue below, we apply the plain error standard under United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005), and finding none, we reaffirm our prior opinion with regard to Beltran-Hernandez.

concurring.

I continue to believe that a defendant’s challenge to the factual basis for a sentence enhancement preserves his Sixth Amendment sentencing claim. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 555-62 (en banc) (Heaney, J., dissenting). Moreover, I adhere to the view stated by Judge Bye in Pirani that defendants who did not properly preserve their Booker claims in the district court are nonetheless generally entitled to resentencing under a constitutional regime. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 562-67 (Bye, J., dissenting). Because a majority of our court held to the contrary on both counts, however, I concur.

concurring.

For the reasons articulated in my dissent in United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 562-67 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Bye, J., dissenting), I join Judge Heaney in “adher[ing] to the view that defendants who did not properly preserve their Booker claims in the district court are nonetheless entitled to resentencing under a constitutional regime.” Like Judge Heaney, however, I recognize we are bound by the holding of our en banc court, and I therefore concur.