Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro SANTILLANA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-09
Citations: 82 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 03-30349
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro SANTILLANA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro SANTILLANA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-30349
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2003.
Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant US Attorney, Theodore Carter, US Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc D. Winsberg, Schonekas, Wins-berg, Evans & McGoey, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Santillana appeals his career-offender sentence following a guilty-plea conviction for marijuana-trafficking crimes. He contends that a Texas aggravated-assault conviction used to establish his career-offender status was not a "crime of violence" due to the facts that he was only 17 at the time of the prior felony, the crime involved only a BB gun, no one was harmed, and he received only probation. The underlying facts need not be considered because the guidelines define "crime of violence" specifically to include "aggravated assault." See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, comment, (n.l); United States v. Guerra, 962 F.2d 484, 485-86 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1992) (relying on application note defining "crime of violence").
Santillana expressly declares that he is not appealing the district court's discretionary refusal to depart downward from career-offender status • pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. His remaining argument on appeal is thus reduced to a meritless recharacterization of his unsuccessful first argument. The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.