Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis GARCIA-GUIA, also known as Miguel Guia-Llavero, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 14-41074
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis GARCIA-GUIA, also known as Miguel Guia-Llavero, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 371–371

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis GARCIA-GUIA, also known as Miguel Guia-Llavero, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41074
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Laura Fletcher' Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Luis Garcia-Guia raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 1410355). In Martinez-Lugo, we held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the eonviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.
Garcia-Guia 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 the sentence enhancement provided for in § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) applies to a conviction for the federal crime of conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense.
The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.