Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Damien Cruz SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-20
Citations: 645 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 15-20444
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Damien Cruz SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Damien Cruz SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-20444
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2016.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Cesar Damien Cruz Sanchez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 533, 193 L.Ed.2d 426 (2015). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement un der U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a prior felony conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.
He also raises an argument that 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 drug trafficking offense qualifies for the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) enhancement.
Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.