Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Uriel GUTIERREZ-MEDINA, also known as Javier Robert Rocha, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-21
Citations: 296 F. App'x 421
Docket Number: No. 08-50107
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Uriel GUTIERREZ-MEDINA, also known as Javier Robert Rocha, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 296
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Uriel GUTIERREZ-MEDINA, also known as Javier Robert Rocha, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50107.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Uriel Gutierrez-Medina (Gutierrez) appeals the sentence following his guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United States following removal. The district court determined that Gutierrez's second prior California conviction for possession of methamphetamine qualified as an "aggravated felony" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C).
Gutierrez argues that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), his second conviction for simple possession of methamphetamine under California law does not constitute an "aggravated felony." He contends that his two prior drug possession convictions did not establish a prior aggravated felony conviction because the Government did not plead and prove the prior convictions, and he was not convicted under California recidivist enhancement procedures. He recognizes that the Court in Lopez, 127 S.Ct. at 630 n. 6, observed in a footnote that 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) makes a second possession conviction a federal felony if the Government shows knowing possession and proves a prior possession conviction through the procedures specified in 21 U.S.C. § 851. However, he argues that under Lopez, the second state possession conviction must be brought under state recidivist procedures that conform to the procedures in § 844 and § 851.
We recently rejected the argument raised by Gutierrez. See United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008). The district court properly determined that Gutierrez's second prior California conviction for possession of methamphetamine was an "aggravated felony" under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). See id.
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.