Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rosali Mauricio RAMOS-SORTO, also known as Sorto Ramos-Mauricio, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-13
Citations: 609 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 14-40062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rosali Mauricio RAMOS-SORTO, also known as Sorto Ramos-Mauricio, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 248–248

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rosali Mauricio RAMOS-SORTO, also known as Sorto Ramos-Mauricio, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40062
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 13, 2015.
Lauretta Drake Bahry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rosali Mauricio Ramos-Sorto appealed the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States after previous deportation. For the first time on appeal, he contends that the district court plainly erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on his 2001 District of Columbia conviction for distribution of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone because the statute of conviction, District of Columbia Code § 33 — 541(a)(1), 33-547.1 (1999), does not require proof of commercial activity.
This argument is foreclosed by our recent holdings in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), and United States v. Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002, 1003, 1008 (5th Cir.2015). Accordingly, Ramos-Sorto has shown no clear or obvious error with regard to his sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.