United States v. Montano-Barrera

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Montano-Barrera

239 F. App'x 88

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 2007

Docket06-51327

StatusUnpublished

This text of 239 F. App'x 88 (United States v. Montano-Barrera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Montano-Barrera, 239 F. App'x 88 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Francisco Montano-Barrera (Montano) appeals his guilty plea conviction and 50-month sentence for unlawful reentry following removal from the United States. Montano asserts that the district court erred by relying on the presentence report (PSR) to make a determination that his prior Oregon conviction for delivery of a schedule II controlled substance is a felony drug trafficking offense meriting a 12-level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B).

Review of the district court’s conclusion that a prior conviction has been sufficiently proven for sentence enhancement purposes is de novo. United, States v. Martinez-Cortez, 988 F.2d 1408, 1410 (5th Cir.1993). The judgment of Montano’s prior conviction establishes that Montano pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with delivery of a schedule II controlled substance, a Class B felony. See United States v. Martinez, 962 F.2d 1161, 1167-69 (5th Cir.1992). Montano’s prior conviction constitutes a felony and a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2; thus, the district court committed no error in enhancing Montano’s sentence. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 2005).

Montano asserts that the district court did not comply with Fed.R.CrimP. 32(i)(l)(A) because it did not directly inquire of him whether he had read the PSR. He urges this court to follow precedent from other circuits that mandates reversals and resentencing for such Rule 32 noncompliance. As Montano concedes, his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 273-74 (5th Cir.2001).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Francisco Montano-Barrera (Montano) appeals his guilty plea conviction and 50-month sentence for unlawful reentry following removal from the United States. Montano asserts that the district court erred by relying on the presentence report (PSR) to make a determination that his prior Oregon conviction for delivery of a schedule II controlled substance is a felony drug trafficking offense meriting a 12-level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B).

Review of the district court’s conclusion that a prior conviction has been sufficiently proven for sentence enhancement purposes is de novo. United, States v. Martinez-Cortez, 988 F.2d 1408, 1410 (5th Cir.1993). The judgment of Montano’s prior conviction establishes that Montano pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with delivery of a schedule II controlled substance, a Class B felony. See United States v. Martinez, 962 F.2d 1161, 1167-69 (5th Cir.1992). Montano’s prior conviction constitutes a felony and a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2; thus, the district court committed no error in enhancing Montano’s sentence. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 2005).

Montano asserts that the district court did not comply with Fed.R.CrimP. 32(i)(l)(A) because it did not directly inquire of him whether he had read the PSR. He urges this court to follow precedent from other circuits that mandates reversals and resentencing for such Rule 32 noncompliance. As Montano concedes, his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 273-74 (5th Cir.2001).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 F. App'x 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-montano-barrera-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack