IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41049

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SEGUNDO BOBADILLA-CHUCARI,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-280-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Segundo Bobadilla-Chucari appeals his 41-month within-guidelines 

sentence that was imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry after 

deportation. He challenges the district court’s application of the 16-level 

enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). For the first time on 

appeal, he argues that his 2002 federal drug conspiracy conviction does not 

constitute a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) 

 

* 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

October 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41049 Document: 00513236421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2015
No. 14-41049

2

because the conviction could be obtained without proof of remuneration. He 

also argues that the conviction does not constitute a “drug trafficking offense” 

for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) because the conviction could be obtained 

without proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. He concedes that 

these arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he raises them to 

preserve for further appellate review. Bobadilla-Chucari also challenges the 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that his 2002 federal drug 

conspiracy conviction was stale and that the district court failed to consider his 

personal circumstances. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, 

alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief. 

 As Bobadilla-Chucari concedes, his challenges to his sentence are subject 

to plain error review because he did not object on these grounds in the district 

court. See United States v. Moreno-Florean, 542 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008). 

To demonstrate plain error, Bobadilla-Chucari 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 affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

 Bobadilla-Chucari correctly states that his arguments challenging the 

application of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) are foreclosed by United States v. MartinezLugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), and United States v. RodriguezEscareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir. 2012). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 

204-05, we held that application of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) is warranted regardless 

whether a conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or 

commercial activity. In Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d at 753-54, we held that 

both a conviction for a federal drug trafficking offense and a conviction for the 

 Case: 14-41049 Document: 00513236421 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2015
No. 14-41049

3

federal crime of conspiring to commit such an offense will support an 

enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). 

Regarding the substantive reasonableness of Bobadilla-Chucari’s 

sentence, the district court listened to the arguments in mitigation but found 

that a sentence at the bottom of his guidelines range was appropriate. “[T]he 

sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import 

under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” United 

States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Additionally, 

the “staleness of a prior conviction used in the proper calculation of a 

guidelines-range sentence does not render a sentence substantively 

unreasonable and does not destroy the presumption of reasonableness that 

attaches to such sentences.” United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231, 234 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Bobadilla-Chucari has not shown sufficient reason for this court to 

disturb the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his sentence. See 

United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

 Although we conclude that the judgment may be affirmed without further 

briefing, summary affirmance is not appropriate. See United States v. Holy 

Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for 

summary affirmance and the alternative motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief are DENIED.

 Case: 14-41049 Document: 00513236421 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2015