Case ID: f-appx_476/html/0776-01.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. Eduardo RODRIGUEZ-VELA, also known as Eduardo Rodriguez Vela, also known as Eduardo Vela Rodriguez, also known as Eduardo Rodriguez-Vega, also known as Eduardo Rodriguez, also known as Michael Rodriguez, also known as Eduardo Rodriguez Vega, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-20646
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 19, 2012.
    John Richard Berry, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Rodriguez-Vela (Rodriguez) appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following a felony conviction and deportation. Rodriguez’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines when it imposed an eight-level increase in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). We review Rodriguez’s argument de novo. See United States v. Landeros-Arreola, 260 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir.2001).

Rodriguez argues that his conviction for attempted felon in possession of a firearm does not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) and comment, (n. 5) because the Texas concept of “attempt” is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of attempt. He further argues that the Texas has not adopted the “substantial step” test of the Model Penal Code and that Texas’s approach instead provides for a more broad test.

Rodriguez’s arguments have been specifically rejected by this court in United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555, 563-66 (5th Cir.2012). Accordingly, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.