Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saul LUCIO-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-20
Citations: 71 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 02-51112
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saul LUCIO-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saul LUCIO-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-51112.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2003.
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Saul Lucio-Diaz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues that the district court erred by increasing his base offense level by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Lucio did not raise this objection in the district court, and, therefore, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir.2000).
Section 2L1.1(b)(1)(A) provides that "[i]f the defendant previously was deported, . after a conviction for a felony that is [ ] a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months," the base offense level is to be increased by 16 levels. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1)(A) (2001). According to the presentence report, Lucio was convicted of trafficking by possession with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. Lucio offered no evidence rebutting the reported length of this sentence; therefore, the presentence report bore sufficient indicia of reliability such that it was not plainly erroneous for the district court to apply the 16-level enhancement. See United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.