USA v. Padilla-Gomez
Filing
920080325
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 25, 2008
No. 05-41468
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUS PADILLA-GOMEZ, also known as, Armando Martinez-Vasquez also known as, Jesus Padilla Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-00409-ALL SCOTUS No. 06-7871 On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court, which vacated our judgment, see United States v. Padilla-Gomez, 203 F. App'x 597 (5th Cir. 2006), and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006). See Ochoa-Perez v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 1263 (2007).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*
No. 05-41468 Padilla-Gomez pleaded guilty to the crime of illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Padilla-Gomez's conviction is AFFIRMED; Padilla-Gomez's sentence is VACATED and REMANDED to the district court for resentencing in accordance with Lopez. We express no opinion on the issue of whether the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) enhancement was appropriate because Padilla-Gomez's 2000 and 2002 possession offenses qualified as "recidivist possession."1 See Lopez, 127 S. Ct. at 630 n. 6; United States v. Sanchez-Villalobos, 412 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2005). *** THE CLERK IS INSTRUCTED TO ISSUE THE MANDATE
FORTHWITH.
Padilla-Gomez was convicted of three state felony drug offenses, first on August 23, 1994, second on August 9, 2000, and third on October 3, 2002. PSR, ¶¶ 21, 28, 30.
1
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?