Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lazaro JUAREZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-09
Citations: 337 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 08-10699
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lazaro JUAREZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 337
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lazaro JUAREZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10699
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 9, 2009.
Talal Haffar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laura S. Harper, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for DefendanL-Appellant.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lazaro Juarez-Mejia appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court erred in assessing a sixteen-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on a finding that he had a prior conviction for a crime of violence ("COV"). He contends that his Indiana conviction of aiding attempted battery with a deadly weapon is not a COV, because it is neither an enumerated offense nor has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.
This court reviews de novo the district court's interpretation of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). Although the statute of conviction does not specifically require the use of force, the prior conviction qualifies as a COV under § 2L1.2, because "the touching of an individual with a deadly weapon creates a sufficient threat of force to qualify as a crime of violence." United States v. Dominguez, 479 F.3d 345, 348 (5th Cir.2007). Therefore, the court did not err in assessing the increase.
The judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.