IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40814
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL MANCILLAS-ZARATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-98-CR-71-1
- - - - - - - - - -
January 6, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Mancillas-Zarate (“Mancillas”) appeals the sentence he
received following his guilty-plea conviction for attempting to
illegally reenter the United States after deportation, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the district court erred and
acted in violation of his right to due process by imposing a
sixteen-point enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), for his prior Texas felony conviction for
possession of cocaine.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40814
-2-
Because he raises these arguments for the first time on
appeal, they are reviewed for plain error. See United States v.
Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States
v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950-51 (5th Cir. 1994). Mancillas has not
demonstrated any error, plain or otherwise, arising out of the
district court’s application of
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d
691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Pearson, 910
F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1991).
Mancillas also argues that due process requires the Government
to prove the aggravated felony sentencing enhancement by proof
greater than a preponderance of the evidence, either beyond a
reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence. However,
Mancillas does not challenge the existence of his prior conviction
or the Government’s ability to prove that conviction under a
heightened standard of proof and thus has failed to demonstrate
that the district court’s finding that the conviction was
sufficiently proved, irrespective of what evidentiary burden was
required, was clear error. See United States v. Palmer, 122 F.3d
215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.