USA v. Jorge Medina-Villarreal

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40909 Affirmed and Remanded] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS. Mandate pull date is 07/15/2015 for Appellant Jorge Ivan Medina-Villarreal [14-40909]

Download PDF
Case: 14-40909 Document: 00513092373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-40909 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 24, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. JORGE IVAN MEDINA-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CR-319-1 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Ivan Medina-Villarreal pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States following removal. He was sentenced at the top of the recommended sentencing guidelines range to 71 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. The parties agree that the judgment of conviction, which states that Medina-Villarreal’s prior removal was subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, improperly 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-40909 Document: 00513092373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 No. 14-40909 reflects that he was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2009). Because Medina-Villarreal’s offense was a § 1326(b)(1) violation rather than a § 1326(b)(2) violation, we REMAND for the limited purpose of reforming the judgment to reflect the proper statute of conviction, § 1326(b)(1), and to state that his prior removal was subsequent to a felony conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. In all other respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 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?