Case ID: f-appx_354/html/0166-01.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. Adan ANTILLON-PEREZ, also known as Alfredo Gomez-Antillon, also known as Adam Tena Antillon, also known as Alejandro Ibarra-Tena, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50038
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 18, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ray Ray Velarde, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Adan Antillon-Perez (Antillon) appeals his guilty plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him to 46 months of imprisonment after imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior drug trafficking offense, specifically, possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine.

Antilion contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his prior federal drug conviction. Because he did not raise this objection in the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). Antilion has failed to establish plain error because the evidence with which the Government supplemented the record on appeal demonstrates that in 2003 Antillon was convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment. A comparison of the statute and the Guideline at issue shows that a conviction under § 841(a)(1) qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). See § 841(a)(1); § 2L1.2, comment. (n.1(B)(iv)).

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       Pursuant to 5m Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.