Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo ACOSTA-ORELLANA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-17
Citations: 225 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 06-40560
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo ACOSTA-ORELLANA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo ACOSTA-ORELLANA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40560
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodolfo Acosta-Orellana appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Acosta-Orel-lana argues that the district court erroneously characterized his state conviction for simple possession of heroin as an aggravated felony, which increased his offense level by eight pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). We review Acosta-Orel-lana's challenge to the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359-61 (5th Cir.2005).
In the light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, — U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), Acosta-Orellana's argument has merit. See United States v. Estrada-Mendoza, 475 F.3d 258, 259-61 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Acosta-Orellana's sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing in light of Lopez.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.