Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan GUAJARDO-PRIETO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 620 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 14-41055
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan GUAJARDO-PRIETO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan GUAJARDO-PRIETO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41055
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 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, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Juan Guajardo-Prieto raises an argument that is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14-10355). In Martinez-Lugo, we determined that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity. Guajardo-Prieto also raises another argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir.2012), which held that the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) sentencing enhancement applies to a conviction for the federal crime of conspiracy to commit a drug trafficking offense..
Accordingly, the Government's unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DE NIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.