Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sotero RAMIREZ-BALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-07
Citations: 606 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 14-40450
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sotero RAMIREZ-BALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWTCK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sotero RAMIREZ-BALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40450
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 7, 2015.
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for.Defendant-Appellant. '
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWTCK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sotero Ramirez-Ballejo appeals the 42-month prison term imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. For the first time on appeal, he contends that the district court committed reversible plain error by imposing the 16-level enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i), based on his prior Tex-as conviction for possessing methamphetamine with intent to deliver, when the Texas statute of conviction could encompass administering a controlled substance and giving away a controlled substance for no remuneration.
These arguments are foreclosed by our recent holdings in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), and United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1892, — L.Ed.2d - (2015). Accordingly, Ramirez-Ballejo has shown no clear or obvious error with regard to his sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.