Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Horacio JIMENEZ-MATA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 101 F. App'x 979
Docket Number: No. 03-51390
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Horacio JIMENEZ-MATA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 979–980

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Horacio JIMENEZ-MATA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-51390.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 23, 2004.
Diane D. Kirstein, Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Rex DeKoatz, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Javier Horacio Jimenez-Mata appeals his sentence for his guilty-plea conviction of illegal re-entry into the United States. Jimenez-Mata argues that the district court erred in increasing his criminal history category with the same offense, ie., his conviction for importation of a quantity of marijuana, used to enhance his offense level by 16 levels.
Under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i), 16 levels are added to the offense level of an alien illegally reentering the United States who has previously been convicted for a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence exceeded 13 months. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) (2002). Given the commentary to that guideline provision, the court's consideration of the importation offense in its calculation of Jimenez-Mata's criminal history score was appropriate. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 comment, (n.5) (2002); United States v. Boudreau, 250 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir.2001).
Jimenez-Mata cites United States v. Henry, 288 F.3d 657 (5th Cir.2002), and United States v. Cade, 279 F.3d 265 (5th Cir.2002), as support for his argument. However, neither of these decisions is apposite as neither involved illegal re-entry and, consequently, neither involved the application of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See Henry, 288 F.3d at 658; Cade, 279 F.3d at 268-69. The district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.