Trinidad Jaimes-Jaimes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court plainly erred when it enhanced his sentence based on a finding that his 1996 Louisiana conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was a felony drug trafficking offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder; — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013), as well as our decision in United States v. Garzar-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268 (5th Cir.2005), he contends that the Louisiana statute under which he was convicted is broader than the drug trafficking offense definition set forth in the commentary to § 2L1.2 because it proscribes the possession with intent to give away and administer a controlled substance. Because Jaimes-Jaimes did not object to the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) enhancement in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir.2005), superseded, by regulation on other grounds as stat-. ed in United States v. Pimpton, 558 Fed.Appx. 335, 337-38 (5th Cir.2013).
In United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (June 24, 2015) (No. 14-10355), we held that an enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior drug trafficking offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity. Further, Jaimes-Jaimes has failed to establish a realistic probability that Louisiana would prosecute an individual under LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 40:966(A)(1) for administering a controlled substance “in a way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 460-62 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1892, 191 L.Ed.2d 767 (2015). Therefore, Jaimes-Jaimes cannot show error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).
AFFIRMED.