Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Gabriel RANGEL-CAMACHO, also known as Juan Gabriel Rangel, 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 425
Docket Number: No. 07-51262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Gabriel RANGEL-CAMACHO, also known as Juan Gabriel Rangel, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 296
Pages: 425–425

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Gabriel RANGEL-CAMACHO, also known as Juan Gabriel Rangel, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-51262.
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.
Juan Gabriel Rangel, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Gabriel Rangel-Camacho (Rangel) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court enhanced Ran-gel's sentence by eight levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) based on a determination that Rangel's second state law conviction for possession of a controlled substance qualified as an "aggravated felony."
Rangel contends that in light of 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 state law conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony. In United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008), we rejected the same arguments made by Rangel in this appeal. For the reasons set forth in Cepeda-Rios, we also affirm Rangel's sentence.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.