     Case: 14-40884      Document: 00513157883         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/18/2015




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                    No. 14-40884                         August 18, 2015
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELEVI ORTIZ-AGUIRRE,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:14-CR-474-1


Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Elevi Ortiz-Aguirre raises an
argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198,
204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14-10355).
In Martinez-Lugo,782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug trafficking offense




       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40884   Document: 00513157883      Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/18/2015


                                No. 14-40884

is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required
proof of remuneration or commercial activity.
      The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative
motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.




                                      2
