Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0852-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juver Alexander DIAZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-40495 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 5, 2018
    Katherine Lisa Haden, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Georgette P. Oden, Crawford & Cruz, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juver Alexander Diaz-Martinez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed for his illegal reentry conviction. He contends that the assessment of criminal history points for a prior conviction that also serves as the basis for an increase in the offense level violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by unconstitutionally punishing him twice for the same offense.

We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Dison, 573 F.3d 204, 207 (5th Cir. 2009). Double-counting does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause so long as the Guidelines do not expressly forbid the double-counting. Id. at 208. The applicable guidelines provisions in this case expressly provide for double-counting of a defendant’s prior conviction in enhancing his offense level and assessing his. criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. (n.3). Accordingly, the district court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.