USA v. Miguel Zamora-Alonso

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11760 Affirmed 16-11761 Affirmed] Judge: WED, Judge: EBC, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 08/09/2017 for Appellants Miguel Angel Zamora-Alonso and Miguel Angel Zamora-Alonzo; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8475840-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8475840-3] [16-11760, 16-11761]

Case: 16-11760

Document: 00514080289

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/19/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 16-11760
Summary Calendar

FILED
July 19, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MIGUEL ANGEL ZAMORA-ALONSO,
Defendant-Appellant
Cons. w/ No. 16-11761
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

MIGUEL ANGEL ZAMORA-ALONSO, also known as Miguel Angel ZamoraAlonso,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CR-143-1
USDC No. 3:16-CR-390-1

Case: 16-11760

Document: 00514080289

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/19/2017

No. 16-11760
c/w No. 16-11761
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Miguel Angel Zamora-Alonso appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He also appeals the revocation of his
supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation.
Zamora-Alonso argues that, with regard to the sentence imposed for his
illegal reentry conviction, the district court committed reversible plain error in
assessing a 16-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015)
in light of his Texas conviction for aggravated assault under Texas Penal Code
§ 22.02. He maintains that the offense does not have as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of force and does not conform to the generic
definition of aggravated assault. As to the revocation of his supervised release,
Zamora-Alonso challenges the validity of the transfer of jurisdiction from the
Western District of Texas to the Northern District of Texas. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3605.

He contends that the Northern District lacked jurisdiction to

adjudicate violations of his supervision that were committed before the
Northern District accepted jurisdiction over his supervised release imposed in
the Western District.
The Government has moved for summary affirmance. The Government
asserts that Zamora-Alonso’s challenge to the 16-level adjustment is foreclosed
by United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 200-01 (5th Cir. 2007), in
which we determined that the Texas offense of aggravated assault is a crime
of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See also United States v. Shepherd, 848
F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming the validity of Guillen-Alvarez
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.
*

2

Case: 16-11760

Document: 00514080289

Page: 3

Date Filed: 07/19/2017

No. 16-11760
c/w No. 16-11761
after Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016)). The Government notes
that Zamora-Alonso’s claims as to the transfer of jurisdiction for his supervised
release are foreclosed by United States v. Fernandez, 379 F.3d 270 (5th Cir.
2004).
Zamora-Alonso acknowledges that his appellate issues are foreclosed by
Guillen-Alvarez and Fernandez. He argues that those decisions were wrongly
decided, and he raises the arguments to preserve them for further review. One
panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another absent an en banc
or superseding Supreme Court decision. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299
F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).
Therefore, summary affirmance is proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc.
v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED.

3