USA v. Jose Ramo
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41483 Affirmed] Judge: TMR, Judge: PRO, Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 07/10/2017 for Appellant Jose Armando Ramos [16-41483]
Date Filed: 06/19/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
June 19, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOSE ARMANDO RAMOS, also known as Jose Marquez-Ramos,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:16-CR-380-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Armando Ramos appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry.
He argues that his prior conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas
Penal Code § 22.02 was improperly characterized as a crime of violence for
purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). He also argues that the entry of
judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was erroneous because Texas aggravated
assault is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 06/19/2017
defines aggravated felony by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16. Ramos failed to object
to these determinations in the district court; therefore, we review for plain
error. See United States v. Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2009); see
also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
In United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-01 (5th Cir. 2007),
we held that a conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas Penal
Code § 22.02 qualifies as the enumerated offense of aggravated assault, and,
thus, a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Guillen-Alvarez
remains valid after Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). United
States v. Shepherd, 848 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017). We are bound by our
own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the
Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc. See United States v. Setser, 607
F.3d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 2010).
We have also rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of § 16(b) based
on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). See United States v.
Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 672-79 (5th Cir.) (en banc), petition for cert.
filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The grant of certiorari in Lynch v. Dimaya,
137 S. Ct. 31 (2016), does not alter our holding in Gonzalez-Longoria. See
Setser, 607 F.3d at 131. The judgment of the district court 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?