USA v. Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41243 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 07/12/2017 for Appellant Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8440360-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8440360-3] [16-41243]
Case: 16-41243
Document: 00514042675
Page: 1
Date Filed: 06/21/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41243
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-CEPEDA,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:16-CR-17-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41243
Document: 00514042675
Page: 2
Date Filed: 06/21/2017
No. 16-41243
deportation. He contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense
level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his Texas convictions of burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. Rodriguez-Cepeda urges,
under Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), that the burglary statute
is not divisible and that not every violation of § 30.02(a) qualifies as a crime of
violence (“COV”) under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). He also contends that the statecourt documents failed to show under which subsection of § 30.02 he was convicted for his 2002 conviction of burglary of a habitation, so the conviction does
not qualify as a COV even under the modified categorical approach.
The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance,
asserting that Rodriguez-Cepeda’s arguments are foreclosed by United States
v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1359 (2017). 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, id. at 669–71, forecloses
Rodriguez-Cepeda’s reliance on Mathis. Accordingly, the motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file
a brief is DENIED, and the judgment 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?