Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0700-01.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. Rigoberto MOLINA-TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50437
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rigoberto Molina-Trujillo presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008), which held that even after Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), a second state conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance qualifies as an aggravated felony that supports the imposition of an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). The Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, and 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
       There is split in the circuit courts that have addressed this issue subsequent to Lopez-Compare United States v. Pacheco-Diaz, 506 F.3d 545, 550 (7th Cir.2007) (second state law controlled substance possession conviction constitutes aggravated felony warranting eight-level increase under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) with Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 438, 446 (6th Cir.2008)) (holding in removal proceeding that second state conviction for misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance did not constitute drug trafficking crime).