Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Matias Mauricio Stracke PULLIRO, also known as Mauricio Matias Stracke, also known as Matias Mauricio Stracks, also known as Matias Mauricio Stracke-Pulliro, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-21
Citations: 344 F. App'x 943
Docket Number: No. 09-20032
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Matias Mauricio Stracke PULLIRO, also known as Mauricio Matias Stracke, also known as Matias Mauricio Stracks, also known as Matias Mauricio Stracke-Pulliro, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINGBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 943–944

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Matias Mauricio Stracke PULLIRO, also known as Mauricio Matias Stracke, also known as Matias Mauricio Stracks, also known as Matias Mauricio Stracke-Pulliro, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-20032
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 21, 2009.
As Revised Oct. 6, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sarah Beth Landau, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINGBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Matías Mauricio Stracke Pulliro pled guilty to having been found unlawfully present in the United States subsequent to a prior conviction. He was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.
In his sole issue on appeal, Pulliro argues that the district court erred in finding that his 2005 Texas conviction for arson was a crime of violence for purposes of the 16-level enhancement provided for by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). He maintains that because the Texas statute (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.02 (Vernon 2003)) does not require intended harm to a person for a conviction, it is broader than the common-law definition of arson. This court recently rejected this same argument in United States v. Velez-Alderete, 569 F.3d 541, 544-46 (5th Cir.2009). In light of our holding in Velez-Alderete, the district court did not err in applying Section 2L1.2's 16-level enhancement based on Pulliro's prior Texas arson conviction.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.