Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose De La Cruz SEPULVEDA-GAYTAN, also known as Jose Sepulveda, 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 396
Docket Number: No. 14-41070
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose De La Cruz SEPULVEDA-GAYTAN, also known as Jose Sepulveda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 396–396

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose De La Cruz SEPULVEDA-GAYTAN, also known as Jose Sepulveda, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41070
Conference 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, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose De La Cruz Sepulveda-Gaytan raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14-10355). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of -a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.
Sepulveda-Gaytan also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir.2012), which held that an enhancement pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) applies to a prior conviction for the federal crime of conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense.
The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.