USA v. Jaime Hernandez-Hernandez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41382 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 05/23/2017 for Appellant Jaime Adrian Hernandez-Hernandez; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellant Mr. Jaime Adrian Hernandez-Hernandez [8411822-2] [16-41382]

Case: 16-41382

Document: 00513975635

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/02/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41382
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 2, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
JAIME ADRIAN HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Also Known as Jaime Adrian Amaro Hernandez-Hernandez,
Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:15-CR-1745-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jaime Hernandez-Hernandez pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and was
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 16-41382

Document: 00513975635

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/02/2017

No. 16-41382
sentenced to a 41-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, he renews his
challenge to application of the eight-level aggravated-felony enhancement of
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The gravamen of his position is that, in light of
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the definition of a crime of
violence (“COV”) in 18 U.S.C, § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face.
Therefore, he contends, his Texas conviction of evading arrest with a motor
vehicle does not qualify as a COV under § 16(b) and thus is not an aggravated
felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).
Hernandez-Hernandez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by
United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 672–77 (5th Cir. 2016)
(en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259), in which we
rejected a constitutional challenge to § 16(b) as facially vague. Moreover, the
Supreme Court recently decided Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 890
(2017), wherein it declined to extend Johnson and held that “the advisory
Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process
Clause.”
In view of the foregoing, Hernandez-Hernandez’s unopposed motion for
summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

2