
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Alfredo MENDOZA-DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40559
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 14, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

Jose Alfredo Mendoza-Delgado (Mendoza) pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully in the United States following deportation and conviction of an aggravated felony and was sentenced to a 24-month term of imprisonment. Mendoza appealed his sentence, arguing that his second drug possession offense should not have been considered an aggravated felony for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) because the Government did not establish that the offense was prosecuted under state recidivism laws providing Mendoza with notice and procedural protections commensurate with those prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 851. We affirmed the judgment of the district court, relying on our decision in United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008). United States v. Mendoza-Delgado, No. 09-40559 (5th Cir. Dec.15, 2009).

After Mendoza petitioned for a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court vacated our decision and remanded the case for consideration in light of Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010). Mendoza-Delgado v. United States, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3457, — L.Ed.2d - (2010). The Court in Carachun-Rosendo held that “when a defendant has been convicted of a simple possession offense that has not been enhanced based on the fact of a prior conviction, he has not been ‘convicted’ under [8 U.S.C.] § 1229b(a)(3) of a ‘felony punishable’ as such ‘under the Controlled Substances Act,’ 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2).” 130 S.Ct. at 2589. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carachwti-Ro-sendo, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing. 
      
      
         Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     