Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maricela CANOA-CORRALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-30
Citations: 294 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 07-41207
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maricela CANOA-CORRALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maricela CANOA-CORRALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-41207
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 2008.
Allen Harvey Hurst, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth Robert Hawk, II, Federal Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maricela Canoa-Corrales appeals her 18-month sentence following her guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation. The district court applied an eight level enhancement to Canoa-Corrales's offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines . Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because she had a prior theft conviction. Canoa-Corrales argues that this prior conviction is not an aggravated felony under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because her sentence was suspended except for 108 days of time served.
The definition of "aggravated felony" adopted by the Guidelines from 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), as interpreted in United States v. Banda-Zamora, 178 F.3d 728, 730 (5th Cir.1999), applies, and the calculation considers the period of incarceration without regard to any suspension of the sentence, in whole or in part. See Banda-Zamora, 178 F.3d at 730; § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) cmt. n. 3. The fact that Canoa-Corrales's sentence for theft was suspended except for 108 days does not change the fact that it meets the definition of an aggravated felony in § 1101(a)(43). Thus, the district court did not err in applying the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) enhancement. See United States v. Armendariz, 451 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir.2006).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.