Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eusebio URIAS-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-08
Citations: 535 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 12-40970
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eusebio URIAS-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 330–330

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eusebio URIAS-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40970
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 8, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eusebio Urias-Marquez appeals the 51-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being illegally present in the United States after removal. He argues that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his Arizona attempted smuggling conviction. We need not determine whether the district court so erred because the error in applying the enhancement, if any, was harmless.
As the Government notes, in imposing the 51-month sentence of imprisonment, the district court indicated that it would impose the same sentence based on the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) no matter the application of the enhancement. In view of the foregoing, the Government has met its burden to establish that any error in applying the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) enhancement was harmless. See United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir.2012); United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir.2008). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.