USA v. Daniel Munoz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-51094 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 08/11/2015 for Appellant Daniel Perez Munoz [14-51094]

Case: 14-51094

Document: 00513123334

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/21/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-51094
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 21, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus
DANIEL PEREZ MUNOZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 3:14-CR-997-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Daniel Munoz appeals the sentence for his conviction of being unlawfully
in the United States following deportation after a felony conviction. He claims
that the district court erred by imposing the 16-level enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on its determination that his 2006
conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under N.M. STAT. ANN.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-51094

Document: 00513123334

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/21/2015

No. 14-51094
§§ 30-3-2(A) and 30-3-1(B) (West 1978) does not constitute a “crime of violence”
(“COV”) because it is neither an enumerated offense nor has as an element the
use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.
This court reviews de novo the district court’s characterization of an
offense as a COV. United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir.
2005). Munoz’s conviction qualifies as a COV because apprehension-causing
aggravated assault creates a sufficient threat of physical force to constitute a
COV. See United States v. Carrasco-Tercero, 745 F.3d 192, 195–99 (5th Cir.
2014); United States v. Silva, 608 F.3d 663, 670–73 (10th Cir. 2010); United
States v. Licon-Nunez, 230 F. App’x 448, 451–52 (5th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the
district court did not err in applying the enhancement.
AFFIRMED.

2