USA v. Rogelio Ortiz-Martinez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41514 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 07/31/2017 for Appellant Rogelio Ortiz-Martinez; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellant Mr. Rogelio Ortiz-Martinez [8447720-2] [16-41514]

Download PDF
Case: 16-41514 Document: 00514065146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41514 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 10, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROGELIO ORTIZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16-CR-498-1 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rogelio Ortiz-Martinez appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being present in the United States following removal. He contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the 2015 version of the Sentencing Guidelines. The enhancement was based on a determination that his conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-41514 Document: 00514065146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2017 No. 16-41514 equivalent to a conviction for the generic offense of “burglary of a dwelling.” Ortiz-Martinez argues that, in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), § 30.02 defines a single indivisible offense too broad to meet that generic definition, and that the district court erred when it narrowed his offense of conviction using the modified categorical approach. In United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 175-76 (5th Cir. 2014), this court held that § 30.02 is a divisible statute and that courts may apply the modified categorical approach to determine which of the three subsections in § 30.02(a) formed the basis of a defendant’s conviction. This court reaffirmed that decision in United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1359 (2017), specifically determining that Mathis did not alter its prior holding. Although Ortiz-Martinez contends that Uribe was wrongly decided, he concedes that his argument is foreclosed by that decision. Accordingly, Ortiz-Martinez’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. 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?