[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 13, 2011
No. 10-15328 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cr-14066-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUSTAVO GONZALEZ-SALINAS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 13, 2011)
Before BARKETT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gustavo Gonzalez-Salinas appeals his 57-month sentence after pleading
guilty to illegally re-entering the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
On appeal, Gonzalez-Salinas asserts that the district court erred by applying a
16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(i)(A)(ii) on the ground that his
prior Florida conviction for aggravated assault was a “crime of violence.” It is
undisputed, however, that Gonzalez-Salinas did not raise his arguments supporting
that assertion below. We therefore review them for plain error. United States v.
Pantle, 637 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir. 2011). And, applying that standard of
review, we conclude that Gonzalez-Salinas is not entitled to relief. This is so
because, even assuming arguendo that the district court erred by applying the
enhancement, any such error was not plain, for there is no precedent from either
this Court or the Supreme Court directly resolving the issue or Gonzalez-Salinas’
arguments. See United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir.
2003). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2