Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Euclides PENA-CASTILLO, also known as Willy Rosado, also known as Euclides Pena, also known as Victor Matos, also known as German Carlos Lopez-Rivas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-04
Citations: 421 F. App'x 85
Docket Number: No. 09-4058-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Euclides PENA-CASTILLO, also known as Willy Rosado, also known as Eu-clides Pena, also known as Victor Ma-tos, also known as German Carlos Lopez-Rivas, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 85–86

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Euclides PENA-CASTILLO, also known as Willy Rosado, also known as Eu-clides Pena, also known as Victor Ma-tos, also known as German Carlos Lopez-Rivas, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-4058-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 4, 2011.
Randa D. Maher, Law Offices of Randa D. Maher, Great Neck, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Euclides Pena-Castillo.
Amie N. Ely, Assistant United States Attorney (Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorney, Of Counsel on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee United States of America.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. Pena-Castillo argues that the United States Sentencing Guidelines's pri- or conviction sentencing enhancement for illegal reentry cases, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), is unreasonable on its face. As such, he claims that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to sentence him, in part, on the basis of this enhancement.
We note, first, that Pena-Castillo does not appear to have fully raised this point in the district court, an omission that would limit our review to plain error. See United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir.2010). Pena-Castillo's claim fails under any standard of review, however, because we have already decided that a district court's application of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) (A) (ii) is not by itself grounds for reversal. See United States v. Perez-Frias, 636 F.3d 39, 43-44 (2d Cir.2011); see also Bonilla, 618 F.3d at 105, 111.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.