USA v. Jennifer Vanmeter
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11184 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 06/14/2017 for Appellant Jennifer Louise Vanmeter [16-11184]
Date Filed: 05/24/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
May 24, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JENNIFER LOUISE VANMETER,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-442-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jennifer Vanmeter was convicted of being a felon in possession of a
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 05/24/2017
firearm and appeals her within-guidelines sentence of 46 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. She contends that the court erred
by calculating her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and designating
her Texas conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as a qualifying crime of violence (“COV”) as defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2015). We
review de novo whether the district court properly characterized a conviction
as a COV. United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 2007).
Although Vanmeter contends that her Texas conviction does not constitute generic aggravated assault, she concedes correctly that her challenge in
that regard is foreclosed by Guillen-Alvarez, id. at 200–01. See also United
States v. Villasenor-Ortiz, No. 16-10366, __ F. App’x __, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS
491, at *5 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017) (per curiam) (reaffirming the continued validity of Guillen-Alvarez in the wake of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243
(2016)). Vanmeter also avers that aggravated assault is no longer an enumerated offense under § 4B1.2 because Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), also invalidated § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause. In Beckles v. United
States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017), the Court held that Johnson’s holding was
not applicable to the definition of a COV in § 4B1.2(a)(2) because the guidelines
are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Beckles therefore effectively forecloses Vanmeter’s theory based on Johnson.
Accordingly, the judgment 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?