REVISED JULY 17, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41351

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BALTAZAR ALEJANDRO LARA-LORENZO, also known as Alejandro LaraBaltaza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1096-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Baltazar Alejandro Lara-Lorenzo (Lara) appeals the sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. He challenges the district 

court’s application of the 16-level adjustment set forth in U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). For the first time on appeal, he argues that his 2012 federal 

drug conspiracy conviction does not constitute a “drug trafficking offense” for 

 

* 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 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41351 Document: 00513119323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
No. 14-41351

2

purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) 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 this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, 

but he raises the argument to preserve it for further review.

As Lara concedes, his first argument is subject to plain error review 

because he did not object to the 16-level adjustment on that basis in the district 

court. See United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). To 

demonstrate plain error, Lara 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.

We have determined that an adjustment under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a 

prior conviction for a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether 

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). In view of Martinez-Lugo, Lara fails to establish that the district court 

clearly or obviously erred in adjusting his offense level.

Lara is correct that his second argument is foreclosed by United States 

v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir. 2012), which held that a 

federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense 

qualifies for the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) adjustment. One panel of this court may 

not overrule the decision of another absent a superseding en banc or Supreme 

Court decision. United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 

2002).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41351 Document: 00513119323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2015