Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Baltazar Alejandro LARA-LORENZO, also known as Alejandro Lara-Baltaza, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-16
Citations: 609 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 14-41351
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Baltazar Alejandro LARA-LORENZO, also known as Alejandro Lara-Baltaza, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Baltazar Alejandro LARA-LORENZO, also known as Alejandro Lara-Baltaza, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41351
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 16, 2015.
As Revised July 17, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S., Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Baltazar Alejandro Lara-Lorenzo (Lara) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. He challenges the district court's application of the 16-level adjustment set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). For the first time on appeal, he argues that his 2012 federal drug conspiracy conviction does not constitute a "drug trafficking offense" for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) because the conviction could be obtained without proof of remuneration. He also argues that the conviction does not constitute a "drug trafficking offense" for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) because the conviction could be obtained without proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he raises the argument to preserve it for further review.
As Lara concedes, his first argument is subject to plain error review because he did not object to the 16-level adjustment on that basis in the district court. See United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1484 (5th Cir.1995). To demonstrate plain error, Lara must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L:Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
We have determined that an adjustment under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a prior conviction for a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether a conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015). In view of Martinez-Lugo, Lara fails to establish that the district court clearly or obviously erred in adjusting his offense level.
Lara is correct that his second argument is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54.(5th Cir.2012), which held that a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense qualifies for the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) adjustment. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another absent a superseding en banc or Supreme Court decision. United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 & n. 34 (5th Cir.2002).
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.