United States v. Noe Zepeda-Rangel

609 F. App'x 216
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 2015
Docket14-40629
StatusUnpublished

This text of 609 F. App'x 216 (United States v. Noe Zepeda-Rangel) 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. Noe Zepeda-Rangel, 609 F. App'x 216 (5th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Noe Zepeda-Rangel appeals the 32-month imprisonment imposed on his guilty-plea conviction of being found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He contends that the district court erroneously applied the 16- *217 level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on his state conviction of trafficking heroin. Relying on Moncrieffe v. Holder, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013), he claims that the statute under which he was convicted encompasses conduct that is broader than the definition of a “drug trafficking offense” within the meaning of § 2L1.2 because it criminalizes the distribution or transportation of heroin without remuneration.

Because Zepeda-Rangel objected to the enhancement, we review de novo the legal question whether the conviction qualifies as a drug-trafficking offense under § 2L1.2. See United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1892, 191 L.Ed.2d 767 (2015). An enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a drug-trafficking conviction is warranted regardless of whether it required proof of remuneration or commercial dealing. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015). In view of Martinez-Lugo, Zepeda has failed to show that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under ‘ the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

Moncrieffe v. Holder
133 S. Ct. 1678 (Supreme Court, 2013)
United States v. Rogelio Teran-Salas
767 F.3d 453 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Juan Martinez-Lugo
782 F.3d 198 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
Moore v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.
135 S. Ct. 1916 (Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
609 F. App'x 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-noe-zepeda-rangel-ca5-2015.