Noe Zepeda-Rangel appeals the 32-month imprisonment imposed on his guilty-plea conviction of being found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He contends that the district court erroneously applied the 16- *217 level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on his state conviction of trafficking heroin. Relying on Moncrieffe v. Holder, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013), he claims that the statute under which he was convicted encompasses conduct that is broader than the definition of a “drug trafficking offense” within the meaning of § 2L1.2 because it criminalizes the distribution or transportation of heroin without remuneration.

Because Zepeda-Rangel objected to the enhancement, we review de novo the legal question whether the conviction qualifies as a drug-trafficking offense under § 2L1.2. See United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1892, 191 L.Ed.2d 767 (2015). An enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a drug-trafficking conviction is warranted regardless of whether it required proof of remuneration or commercial dealing. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015). In view of Martinez-Lugo, Zepeda has failed to show that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level.

AFFIRMED.