
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramos SERANO, also known as Jose Serano Ramos, also known as Jose Ramos Seran, also known as Jose S. Ramos, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-40145
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 10, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Ramos Serano (Serano) appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry of a previously deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. As his sole argument on appeal, Serano argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines and reversibly erred when it imposed the sixteen-level “crime of violence” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (Nov. 2009), based on his 2008 Texas conviction for attempted deadly conduct. We review this issue de novo. United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555, 560 (5th Cir.2012).

As he did in the district court, Serano argues that his conviction for attempted deadly conduct does not qualify as a crime of violence because the Texas concept of attempt is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of attempt. He further argues that the Texas has not adopted the “substantial step” test of the Model Penal Code and that Texas’s approach instead provides for a more broad test.

Serano’s arguments have been specifically rejected by this court in Sanchez, 667 F.3d at 563-66. Accordingly, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     