Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johan Dario REYES-HOBBS, also known as Johan Dario Reyes, also known as Dario Johan Reyes, also known as Johan David Reyes, also known as Johan Dari Reyes, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-12
Citations: 366 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 09-20613
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johan Dario REYES-HOBBS, also known as Johan Dario Reyes, also known as Dario Johan Reyes, also known as Johan David Reyes, also known as Johan Dari Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 511–511

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johan Dario REYES-HOBBS, also known as Johan Dario Reyes, also known as Dario Johan Reyes, also known as Johan David Reyes, also known as Johan Dari Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-20613
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Johan Dario Reyes-Hobbs presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008), which held that even after Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), a second state conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance qualifies as an aggravated felony that supports the imposition of an eight-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). The appellant's motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.