Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio ALCASAR-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-28
Citations: 350 F. App'x 969
Docket Number: No. 08-50418
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio ALCASAR-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 969–970

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio ALCASAR-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50418
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 28, 2009.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Miguel A. Torres, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Antonio AlcasarSanchez (Alcasar) appeals his 48-month sentence for being found illegally in the United States following a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He claims that the district court erred in relying upon the Presentence Investigation Report's characterization of his prior Washington conviction for second degree robbery as a crime of violence for the purpose of enhancing his sentence by 16 levels pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline section 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).
Because Alcasar did not raise this objection in the district court, we review only for plain error. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). Although the district court was silent as to whether the court was aware of and examined the statute of conviction, any error does not require reversal under the plain error standard because the district court had before it documents establishing that Alcasar was convicted of second degree robbery under § 9A.56.210 and 9A.56.190 of the Revised Code of Washington. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 273-74 (5th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.