Case Information
*1 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Defendant-Appellant Jorge Armando Mireles-Ibarra pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States. His 34-month, within-Guidelines sentence included an eight-level enhancement because the district court determined that, prior to his first deportation in 2007, Mireles-Ibarra had “sustained a conviction for a felony offense for which the sentence imposed was two years or more.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B). Specifically, Mireles-Ibarra’s *2 Case: 16-41681 Document: 00514111650 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2017
No. 16-41681
2007 deportation followed his conviction and 10-year probationary sentence, under Texas law, for burglary of a habitation. After he returned illegally in 2011, Mireles-Ibarra violated his probation, and the state court adjudicated him guilty of burglary and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment. On appeal, Mireles-Ibarra contends that the district court reversibly erred by applying the challenged enhancement because, contrary to the mandate of § 2L1.2, his two-year custodial sentence on the 2007 Texas burglary conviction was not imposed until after he “was ordered deported or ordered removed from the United States for the first time.” § 2L1.2(b)(2).
Even assuming without deciding that the district court erred, we conclude that any error was harmless. See United States v. Martinez-Romero , 817 F.3d 917, 924 (5th Cir. 2016). The record indicates that the basis for Mireles-Ibarra’s 34-month sentence was not the applicable guidelines range, but instead was the inadequacy of the 30-month sentence he had recently served on a prior illegal reentry conviction, which the district court determined warranted a “slightly higher” sentence in this case. Cf . United States v. Ibarra- Luna , 628 F.3d 712, 718-19 (5th Cir. 2010). The court explained that such a sentence was “necessary” to satisfy the ends of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), notwithstanding any guidelines error. Cf . United States v. Bonilla , 524 F.3d 647, 656-57 (5th Cir. 2008). The error does not warrant vacating the sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.