Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Manuel MEZA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 619 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 15-40060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Manuel MEZA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Manuel MEZA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-40060
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, H. Michael Sokolpw, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jesus Manuel.Meza-Garcia raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14-10355). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.
Meza-Garcia also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir.2012), which held that the sentence enhancement provided for in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) applies to a conviction for the federal crime of conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense.
Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and 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 pubh'shed and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.