Case Information
*1 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Jose Sosa-Alcides appeals the 37-month within-guidelines sentence imposed on his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Finding no error by the district court, we affirm. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
The district court properly overruled Sosa-Alcides’s sole objection to the calculation of the guidelines sentencing range, which was that it was error to *2 Case: 16-41537 Document: 00514158603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2017
No. 16-41537
enhance the base offense level by eight levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2015) on the ground that Sosa-Alcides had 2010 and 2012 California felony convictions for receipt of a stolen motor vehicle and that each conviction constituted an aggravated felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). Sosa-Alcides was sentenced to more than one year in prison on each of those convictions under California Penal Code § 496d(a), which makes it a crime for anyone to buy or receive “any motor vehicle . . . that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be stolen or obtained.”
As Sosa-Alcides acknowledges, we have held that a conviction under a substantially similar statute, Texas Penal Code § 31.03, constitutes a conviction for an aggravated felony theft under § 1101(a)(43)(G). See United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar , 768 F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014). Sosa-Alcides suggests, however, that Martinez v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 532, 541 (5th Cir. 2008), controls the disposition of this appeal. He suggests further that his argument is not foreclosed because Rodriguez-Salazar did not specifically address § 496d(a), which Sosa-Alcides believes not to fit within the generic crime of theft because the statute criminalizes conduct that may involve the victim’s consent.
We conclude that Rodriguez-Salazar , 768 F.3d at 437-38, resolves the issue at hand in the Government’s favor. In Rodriguez-Salazar , we emphasized that the theft question before us, namely, the eight-level offense enhancement for a violation of § 31.03, had not been before us in Martinez , which addressed whether a conviction under the federal bank fraud statute qualified as an aggravated felony. Rodriguez-Salazar , 768 F.3d at 438.
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.