United States v. Eusebio Urias-Marquez , 535 F. App'x 330 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-40970       Document: 00512299140         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/08/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 8, 2013
    No. 12-40970
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    EUSEBIO URIAS-MARQUEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:12-CR-84-1
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Eusebio Urias-Marquez appeals the 51-month sentence of imprisonment
    imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being illegally present in the
    United States after removal. He argues that the district court erred in imposing
    a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his
    Arizona attempted smuggling conviction. We need not determine whether the
    district court so erred because the error in applying the enhancement, if any,
    was harmless.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 12-40970     Document: 00512299140    Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/08/2013
    No. 12-40970
    As the Government notes, in imposing the 51-month sentence of
    imprisonment, the district court indicated that it would impose the same
    sentence based on the factors of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) no matter the application of
    the enhancement. In view of the foregoing, the Government has met its burden
    to establish that any error in applying the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement was
    harmless. See United States v. Richardson, 
    676 F.3d 491
    , 511 (5th Cir. 2012);
    United States v. Bonilla, 
    524 F.3d 647
    , 656 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the
    district court is affirmed.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-40970

Citation Numbers: 535 F. App'x 330

Judges: Dennis, Haynes, Jolly, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/8/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023