From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Sanchez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Apr 20, 2016
No. 15-20444 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-20444

04-20-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CESAR DAMIEN CRUZ SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant


Conference Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-77-1 Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. --------

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Cesar Damien Cruz Sanchez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 533 (2015). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior felony conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.

He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir. 2012), which held that a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug trafficking offense qualifies for the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement.

Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Sanchez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Apr 20, 2016
No. 15-20444 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Sanchez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CESAR DAMIEN CRUZ SANCHEZ…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 20, 2016

Citations

No. 15-20444 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2016)