Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41285/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Ezequiel Munoz-Munoz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41285

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE EZEQUIEL MUNOZ-MUNOZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1107-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ezequiel Munoz-Munoz appeals the sentence imposed on his 

conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States following a previous 

deportation. He argues that the district court plainly erred in assessing the 

drug trafficking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his 

2011 federal convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent 

to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with intent to 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41285 Document: 00513121268 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2015
No. 14-41285

2

distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. According to Munoz-Munoz, those 

offenses did not require proof of commercial activity and therefore extend more 

broadly than the generic definition of a drug trafficking offense.

As he concedes, his argument is reviewed under the plain error standard 

because it was not raised in the district court. See United States v. RodriguezEscareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir. 2012). The drug trafficking enhancement 

under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) is not rendered inapplicable merely because the prior 

conviction did not require proof of remuneration or commercial activity. 

United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 202-05 (5th Cir. 2015). Contrary 

to Munoz-Munoz’s argument, the federal offenses of conspiracy to distribute a 

controlled substance and possession with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance qualify as drug trafficking offenses under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). 

Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d at 754. Munoz-Munoz has not demonstrated 

error, much less plain error, in the district court’s assessment of the 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41285 Document: 00513121268 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2015