Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo SIERRA-PESINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-24
Citations: 531 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 12-41242
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo SIERRA-PESINA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo SIERRA-PESINA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41242
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 24, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pablo Sierra-Pesina appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United States after having previously been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the district court erred in characterizing his prior conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana as a drug trafficking offense and increasing his offense level by 16 additional points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i).
Sierra-Pesina concedes that his argument that his conspiracy conviction was not a drug trafficking offense because, unlike the Model Penal Code, the federal conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846, does not require an overt act, is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.2012). In Rodriguez-Escareno, we concluded that a reasonable interpretation of the Guidelines provides that conspiring to commit a federal drug trafficking offense qualifies for the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) enhancement. Id. at 753-54.
Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's alterna-five motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.