sentence. Id. at 616-618. Likewise, in a recent unpublished case nearly identical to the present one, United States v. Gonzalez-Borjas, 125 Fed.Appx. 556, 557 (5th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (unpublished), this court found that the district court had committed plain error when it imposed a sixteen-level enhancement for committing a “drug trafficking offense.” In Gonzalez-Borjas, the district court adopted the PSR’s characterization of the defendant’s sentence as a “drug trafficking offense.” This court reversed the defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court had committed plain error when finding that the defendant had committed a “drug trafficking offense.” Gonzalez-Borjas, 125 Fed.Appx. at 557-58; see also United States v. Martinez-Cortez, 988 F.2d 1408, 1451-17 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d at 907-09 (holding
holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the armed career criminal act holding that the district courts reliance on the psr to characterize the defendants prior offense for enhancement purposes was error holding remand not required where district court relied on federal psr that incorporated facts from state psr not objected to by defendant to determine prior conviction was controlled substance offense for purposes of career offender sentence enhancement under guidelines