Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernesto PACHECO-SANCHEZ, also known as Eufemio Espinoza-Barron, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-08
Citations: 291 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 07-51319
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernesto PACHECO-SANCHEZ, also known as Eufemio Espinoza-Barron, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernesto PACHECO-SANCHEZ, also known as Eufemio Espinoza-Barron, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-51319
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 8, 2008.
Mara A. Blatt, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant Us Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ernesto Pacheco-Sanchez appeals his 34-month sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court enhanced Pacheco's sentence by eight levels because it determined that his second state-law conviction for possession of a controlled substance qualified as an "aggravated felony" under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Although post -Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In that respect, its application of the guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005).
Pacheco contends that, in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), his second state-law conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony. Pursuant to United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 334-36 (5th Cir.2008), Lopez has not altered our holding in United States v. Sanchez-Villalobos, 412 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.2005), that a second state conviction for simple possession qualifies as an aggravated felony sufficient to support the imposition of the eight-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C).
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.