Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando ORTEGA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-05
Citations: 534 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 12-40951
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando ORTEGA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 261–261

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando ORTEGA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40951
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 5, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Armando Ortega-Garcia (Ortega) appeals the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being illegally present in the United States following deportation. He contends that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). Specifically, Ortega argues that his drug conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not fit within the generic, contemporary meaning of "conspiracy," and thus does not warrant the 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i), because the conviction did not require proof of an overt act.
As Ortega concedes, the issue he raises is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 754 (5th Cir.2012), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2044, 185 L.Ed.2d 902 (2013). In Rodriguez-Escareno, we determined that the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) enhancement applies to the federal crime of conspiring to commit a drug trafficking offense. Id.
Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.