Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador GRIMALDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-05
Citations: 532 F. App'x 504
Docket Number: No. 11-41221
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador GRIMALDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 532
Pages: 504–505

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador GRIMALDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-41221
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 5, 2013.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Salvador Grimaldo pled guilty to being found in the United States after a prior deportation and was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment. For the first time on appeal, he argues that his offense level was improperly enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on his prior federal conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He maintains that his prior conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 did not require any overt act, that it therefore was not a conspiracy within the generic, contemporary meaning of the word, and that it cannot support the enhancement.
Because of the absence of an objection at sentencing, we review Grimaldo's arguments only for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir.2012). In considering whether a prior federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug trafficking offense will justify an enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i), we need look no further than the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 753-54. The "Guidelines themselves, reasonably interpreted," support the enhancement. Id. at 754. Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. Id. at 754-55.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.