Filed: Jun. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-50720 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUL ALMAGUER-REYES, Defendant-Appellant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 98-50807 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS ROCHA-AREVALOS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-97-CR-488-1 USDC No. DR-98-CR-
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-50720 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUL ALMAGUER-REYES, Defendant-Appellant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 98-50807 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS ROCHA-AREVALOS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-97-CR-488-1 USDC No. DR-98-CR-1..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-50720
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL ALMAGUER-REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
No. 98-50807
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ROCHA-AREVALOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-97-CR-488-1
USDC No. DR-98-CR-131-1
- - - - - - - - - -
June 16, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appellants pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-50720
c/w No. 98-50807
- 2 -
country after having been deported. They argue that the district
court erred when it increased their offense levels by 16 under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) for their prior state
drug convictions. They contend that, because their state felony
drug convictions would be only misdemeanors under federal law,
their prior convictions were not “drug-trafficking crime[s]”
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) and did not constitute “aggravated
felon[ies]” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Their argument is
foreclosed by United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,
130 F.3d 691, 694
(5th Cir. 1997). The appellants’ sentences are AFFIRMED.