Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dwayne Malcom BELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-03
Citations: 534 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 12-50557
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dwayne Malcom BELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dwayne Malcom BELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50557
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 3, 2013.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Malcom Bell pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of non-reporting supervised release. For the first time on appeal, he argues that his offense level was improperly enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on his prior federal conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute phency-clidine (PCP) and marijuana. He maintains that his prior conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 did not require any overt act, that it thus is not a conspiracy within the generic, contemporary meaning of the word, and that it cannot support the enhancement.
We review Bell's arguments only for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir.2012). The prior conviction used to support the enhancement in this case was based on § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 812 and 841. In considering whether a prior federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug trafficking offense will justify an enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i), we need look no further than the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 753-54. The "Guidelines themselves, reasonably interpreted," support the enhancement. Id. at 754. Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. Id. at 754-55.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.