Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel RODRIGUEZ-PRIETO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-21
Citations: 491 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 10-51119
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel RODRIGUEZ-PRIETO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel RODRIGUEZ-PRIETO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-51119
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 21, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Rodriguez-Prieto (Rodriguez) appeals his 87-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that the district court plainly erred by assigning a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(f) (2009) under the theo ry that the sentence for one of his North Carolina crimes of violence did not receive any points because it was counted together with the sentence imposed for the other North Carolina offense under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). He asserts that the two offenses were consolidated in a single judgment that produced a single sentence under North Carolina General Statutes § 15A-1340.15(b).
The North Carolina procedure does not affect the Guideline § 4A1.2(a)(2) direction that "any prior sentence covered by (A) or (B)" is counted as a single sentence. It follows that, whether the district judge added one history point because of § 4Al.l(f) or three more for the second crime of violence, there was no error for defendant's complaint.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.