Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel URESTI-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 388
Docket Number: No. 14-40903
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel URESTI-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 388–388

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel URESTI-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40903
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Uresti-Garza appealed the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States after previous deportation. For the first time on appeal, he contends that the district court plainly erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on his 2011 Nebraska conviction for distribution of a controlled substance because the statute of conviction, Nebraska Revised Statute § 28 — 416(1)(a) (2010), does not require proof of commercial activity.
This argument is foreclosed by our recent holdings in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 205) (No. 14-10355), and United States v. Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002, 1003, 1008 (5th Cir.2015). Accordingly, Uresti-Garza has shown no clear or - obvious error with regard to his sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.