Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose JARAMILLO-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Jose Jaimes-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 101 F. App'x 478
Docket Number: No. 03-51339
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose JARAMILLO-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Jose Jaimes-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 478–478

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose JARAMILLO-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Jose Jaimes-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-51339.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 23, 2004.
Mark Randolph Stelmach, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donna F. Coltharp, San Antonio, TX for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Jaramillo-Dominguez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegally entering the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Jaramillo raises an issue that he concedes is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve it for further review.
Jaramillo argues that his prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance should not be considered an "aggravated felony" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 705-711 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1021, 123 S.Ct. 1948, 155 L.Ed.2d 864 (2003). Jaramillo's argument that the rule of lenity is applicable is without merit because the meaning of "aggravated felony" is not ambiguous. See United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir.2001).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.