Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcelo GARRIDO-REYES, also known as Marcelo G. Reyes, 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 354
Docket Number: No. 14-41244
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcelo GARRIDO-REYES, also known as Marcelo G. Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcelo GARRIDO-REYES, also known as Marcelo G. Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41244
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, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defen-danL-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Marcelo Garrido-Reyes 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. 1410355). 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.
Garrido-Reyes 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 DE NIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.