### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40426 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DARWIN SIERRA-ARRAZOLA, also known as Darwin Omar Sierra-Arrazola, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:10-CR-2495-1

Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Darwin Sierra-Arrazola (Sierra) appeals the 24- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court erred in applying the 12 level enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1) base d o n h i s 2010 Utah drug conviction, arguing th a t th e Utah conviction does not qualify as a “drug trafficking offense” on which the enhancement can be based. He insists that the Utah statute of conviction may be violated in ways that do not qualify as a drugU n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 11, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40426 Document: 00511663239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2011No. 11-40426

trafficking offense under the Guidelines and that the Utah judgment and docket sheet submitted with the presentence report d o n o t p rovide a sufficient basis under Shepard v. United States , 544 U.S. 13 (2005 ) f o r d etermining that his conviction was for a drug-trafficking offense. Based on the Utah j u d g m e n t of conviction, the district court ruled that Sierra had been convicted of distribution of a controlled substance. At the sentencing hearing, Sierra admitted that he had been charged and convicted in Utah because he had sold crack cocaine to an undercov e r police officer. This admitted conduct constitutes distribution of a controlled substance and falls within § 2L1.2's definition of a drug trafficking offense. See § 2L1.2, comment. (n.1(B)(iv)); 21 U

. S

. C

. § 841(a). Sierra’s admission that he distributed crack cocaine and the information in the Utah judgment are sufficient to establish his prior convi c ti o n for a drug trafficking offense. See United States v. MendozaSanchez , 456 F.3 d 4 7 9 , 4 83 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Garcia-Arrellano , 522 F.3d 477, 480 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court did not err in applying the 12 level enhancement. Sierra also argues claims he should not have been convicted and sentenced under § 1326(b)(2) because his sole prior conviction in Utah has not been shown to qualify as an “aggravated felony.” An aggravated felony is defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) as “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance

. . . including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).” § 1101(a)(43)(B). Section 924(c) defines a drug trafficking crime as, int e r al i a , “any felony punishable under the Con t r o lled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).” S i e rra’s prior Utah conviction for distribution of a controlled substance thus qualifies as an aggravated felony. Se e § 8 4 1(a), and his contention to the contrary is without merit. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-40426 Document: 00511663239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2011