Case ID: f-appx_72/html/0235-01.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. Jose BECERRA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-40149.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2003.
    Mitchel Neurock, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Cesar A. Amador, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Becerra-Rodriguez appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to being an alien unlawfully present in the United States subsequent to deportation following conviction for an aggravated felony. The prior felony conviction involved the transportation of aliens, and the district court used it to increase Rodriguez’s base offense level.

Rodriguez argues that the district court erred when it increased his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) because transporting undocumented aliens is not equivalent to alien smuggling for purposes of that guideline. Rodriguez correctly acknowledges that this issue if foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Solis-Campozano, 312 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1811, 155 L.Ed.2d 689 (2003), which held that the term “smuggling” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) includes “transporting” aliens within the United States.

Rodriguez also argues that the district court erred when it looked beyond the indictment charging him with transporting aliens and considered information in his presentence report to increase his sentence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii). This issue is likewise foreclosed. United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677, 678 (5th Cir.2003).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Rodriguez’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.