USA v. Jorge Olalde-Gonzalez
UNPUBLISHED OPINION On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States FILED. [15-10869 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: CH [15-10869]
Date Filed: 02/10/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
United States Court of Appeals
February 10, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff - Appellee
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:15-CR-8-1
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
The Supreme Court granted Jorge Olalde-Gonzalez’s petition for writ of
certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded the case for further
consideration in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). See
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 02/10/2017
Olalde-Gonzalez v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 296 (2016) (mem.). While the
defendant raised multiple contentions on appeal, the only issue presented in
light of Mathis is whether the district court plainly erred by enhancing the
defendant’s sentence based on a prior Texas burglary conviction. Prior to
Mathis, the defendant conceded that his argument was foreclosed by United
States v. Conde–Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2014). See United States v.
Olalde-Gonzalez, 642 F. App’x 426, 428 (5th Cir. 2016.).
The Fifth Circuit has since confronted the issue of whether Mathis
“disturbs Conde–Castaneda,” and we held “that it does not.” United States v.
Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 670 (5th Cir. 2016). Following Uribe, we held this case in
abeyance while the Uribe defendant sought en banc review. The petition for
rehearing en banc was denied on January 30, 2017, and this case is ripe for
disposition. Uribe controls. Accordingly, the sentence is AFFIRMED.
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?