
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto RAMOS-MARRUFO, also known as Gilberto Ramos-Marrufa, also known as Gilberto Ramos, also known as Gilberto Marrufo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30895
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 31, 2012.
    Robert Benjamin Weir, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carol Loupe Michel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robin Elise Schulberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roma Ajubita Kent, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gilberto Ramos-Marrufo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, and the district court sentenced him -within the advisory guidelines range to 46 months of imprisonment. Ramos-Marrufo’s total offense level was enhanced by 16 levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on the district court’s determination that his prior Illinois conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance amounted to a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months of imprisonment. The presentence report (PSR), to which Ramos-Marrufo did not object and which the district court adopted, provided that in 2003, Ramos-Marrufo was convicted in Illinois of one count of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and one count of criminal drug conspiracy.

For the first time on appeal, RamosMarrufo argues that the district court erred by relying solely on the PSR to conclude that his prior unlawful delivery of a controlled substance conviction was a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) because the Illinois statute under which he was convicted prohibits the unlawful delivery of controlled substances, their analogs, or counterfeit substances. Because he failed to object to the 16-level enhancement in the district court, review is for plain error. United States v. Garcia-Arellano, 522 F.3d 477, 480 (5th Cir.2008).

A plain error is a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir.2009). When those elements are shown, we have the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Government has supplemented the record on appeal with an indictment and judgment documenting Ramos-Marrufo’s prior delivery and conspiracy convictions. “Therefore, we must determine whether the district court plainly erred in imposing the sentence enhancement based on the record before us as supplemented with the state court documents concerning [Ramos-Marrufo’s] conviction[s].” Garcia-Arellano, 522 F.3d at 480.

Ramos-Marrufo’s state court papers reveal that although his prior delivery conviction involved either cocaine or its analog, his prior conspiracy conviction involved actual cocaine. He was sentenced to eight years and six months of imprisonment on both counts. Because RamosMarrufo’s prior conspiracy conviction was a “drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months,” he has not demonstrated that the district court plainly erred by applying the 16-level enhancement. See Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     