Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando GARCIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-04
Citations: 281 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 07-40955
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando GARCIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 281
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando GARCIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 4, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mary Jane Harmon, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Fernando Garcia-Garcia ("Garcia-Garcia") appeals the sentence he received for his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court enhanced Garcia-Garcia's sentence by eight levels because it determined that his second state law conviction for possession of a controlled substance qualified as an "aggravated felony" under the sentencing guidelines. Garcia-Garcia contends that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), his second state law conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony.
Today, in United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.2008), we rejected precisely the same argument made by Defendant-Appellant in this appeal. For the reasons set forth in Cepedar-Rios, the sentence received by Garcia-Garcia 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.