Filed: Apr. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 24, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-20445 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PAULO CESAR ESPINOZA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-900-ALL - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Paulo Cesar Espinoza-Hern
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 24, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-20445 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PAULO CESAR ESPINOZA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-900-ALL - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Paulo Cesar Espinoza-Herna..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 24, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-20445
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAULO CESAR ESPINOZA-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-900-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paulo Cesar Espinoza-Hernandez (“Espinoza”) appeals the
sentence following his guilty plea for illegal reentry into the
United States following deportation. Espinoza argues that his
prior conviction for possession of cocaine is not an aggravated
felony under the November 1, 2001, Sentencing Guidelines
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).
Espinoza’s arguments regarding the definitions of “drug
trafficking offense” and “aggravated felony” are foreclosed by
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20445
-2-
our decision in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero,
312 F.3d 697,
705-11 (5th Cir. 2002), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Mar. 19,
2003) (No. 02-9747). Accordingly, the district court did not err
in assessing the eight-level upward adjustment.
AFFIRMED.