Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40807/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40807-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Lopez-Merino
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40807

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE LOPEZ-MERINO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-287

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Lopez-Merino appeals the 24-month prison term imposed following 

his guilty plea to being found in the United States after a previous deportation. 

He contends that the district court erroneously applied the 16-level 

enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his 2001 New Jersey 

conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute near school 

property. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 

 

* 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 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-40807 Document: 00513103451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2015
No. 14-40807

2

S. Ct. 1678 (2013), as well as on this court’s decisions, Lopez-Merino argues 

that the New Jersey statutory provisions under which he was convicted are 

broader than the definition of “drug trafficking offense” set forth in the 

commentary to Section 2L1.2 because they criminalize the distribution of 

cocaine without remuneration. His statute of conviction criminalizes 

“possess[ing] . . . with intent to . . . distribute . . . a controlled dangerous 

substance . . . .” N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:35-5a.(1) (West 2000). There is some 

authority that the term “distribute” in the New Jersey statute simply means 

“to deliver” and “does not require a commercial sale.” See State v. Heitzman, 

508 A.2d 1161, 1163 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986). 

Because Lopez-Merino did not object to the enhancement in the district 

court, this court’s review is for plain error. See United States v. MorenoFlorean, 542 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008). To prevail, he must show a forfeited 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we 

have the discretion to correct the error, but only if it “seriously affect[s] the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See id. (citation 

and quotation marks omitted).

We recently determined that using the Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) 

enhancement for a prior drug trafficking conviction is warranted even if, as 

here, a conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or 

commercial activity. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 

(5th Cir. 2015). Consequently, Lopez-Merino fails to establish that the district 

court clearly or obviously erred in enhancing his offense level.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-40807 Document: 00513103451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2015