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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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?