Case ID: f-appx_335/html/0429-01.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. Moises Aron RODRIGUEZ-FUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40773
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 24, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Moisés Aron Rodriguez-Funez was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to serve 37 months in prison. Rodriguez-Funez appeals his sentence. He argues that he should be resentencecl because the district court erroneously believed that his prior conviction was for an aggravated felony. He concedes that this claim is reviewed for plain error only due to his failure to raise it in the district court.

A review of the record shows that the same sentence could be imposed upon Rodriguez-Funez if this case were remanded for resentencing. This review likewise does not show that it is reasonably probable that Rodriguez-Funez would have received a different sentence but for the district court’s erroneous belief concerning his prior conviction. Consequently, Rodriguez-Funez has not shown plain error in connection with his sentence, nor has he established that he should receive relief on this claim. See Puckett v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 437-38 (5th Cir.2006). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.