Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe PEREZ-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 14-40693
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe PEREZ-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe PEREZ-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40693
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2015.
Katherine Lisa Haden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal ease, Felipe Perez-Ramos raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2015 WL 3867557 (Nov. 30, 2015) (No. 14-10355). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement under 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.
Perez-Ramos 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 the sentence enhancement provided for in § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) applies to a 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 DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.