USA v. Emilio Velasquez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20127 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 05/24/2017 for Appellant Emilio Sosa Velasquez; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8342122-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8342122-3] [16-20127]
Case: 16-20127
Document: 00513977560
Page: 1
Date Filed: 05/03/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-20127
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 3, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EMILIO SOSA VELASQUEZ, also known as Emilliano Velasquez Sosa, also
known as Emilio Sosa-Velasquez, also known as Emiliano Sosa, also known as
Julio Emiliano Velasquez-Sosa, also known as Emiliano Velasquez,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-443-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Emilio Sosa Velasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty
plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated
felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that
the district court erred in assessing him a 16-level enhancement pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his prior Texas conviction for
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-20127
Document: 00513977560
Page: 2
Date Filed: 05/03/2017
No. 16-20127
burglary of a habitation, in violation of TEXAS PENAL CODE § 30.02(a)(1), which
the district court characterized as a crime of violence. See United States v.
Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that § 30.02(a) is
divisible and reiterating that offenses under § 30.02(a)(1) qualify as generic
burglary). Velasquez argues that this conviction does not qualify as a crime of
violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
2243 (2016).
The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance
asserting that Velasquez’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in
United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017
WL 661924 (Mar. 20, 2017) (No. 16-7969).
In the alternative, the
Government requests an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.
The Government is correct that Uribe forecloses Velasquez’s Mathis
argument. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the Government’s
motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an
extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district
court 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?