Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Roberto Perez GONZALEZ also known as, Enrique Roberto Perez-Gonzalez also known as, Enrique Perez-Gonzalez also known as, Roberto Enrique Perez Gonzalez also known as, Enrique Roberto Perez also known as, Enrique Perez Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-16
Citations: 326 F. App'x 840
Docket Number: No. 08-20753
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Roberto Perez GONZALEZ also known as, Enrique Roberto Perez-Gonzalez also known as, Enrique Perez-Gonzalez also known as, Roberto Enrique Perez Gonzalez also known as, Enrique Roberto Perez also known as, Enrique Perez Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 840–841

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Roberto Perez GONZALEZ also known as, Enrique Roberto Perez-Gonzalez also known as, Enrique Perez-Gonzalez also known as, Roberto Enrique Perez Gonzalez also known as, Enrique Roberto Perez also known as, Enrique Perez Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-20753
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2009.
James Lee Turner, 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 SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Enrique Roberto Perez Gonzalez presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008), which held that even after Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), a second state conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance qualifies as an aggravated felony that supports the imposition of an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). The appellant's unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.