Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juver Alexander DIAZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-05
Citations: 707 F. App'x 852
Docket Number: No. 17-40495 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juver Alexander DIAZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 852–852

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juver Alexander DIAZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40495 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 5, 2018
Katherine Lisa Haden, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Georgette P. Oden, Crawford & Cruz, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juver Alexander Diaz-Martinez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed for his illegal reentry conviction. He contends that the assessment of criminal history points for a prior conviction that also serves as the basis for an increase in the offense level violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by unconstitutionally punishing him twice for the same offense.
We review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Dison, 573 F.3d 204, 207 (5th Cir. 2009). Double-counting does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause so long as the Guidelines do not expressly forbid the double-counting. Id. at 208. The applicable guidelines provisions in this case expressly provide for double-counting of a defendant's prior conviction in enhancing his offense level and assessing his. criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. (n.3). Accordingly, the district court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.