Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0089-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Renee Salgado CASIMIRO, also known as Mojica Alberto Vaca, also known as Renee Gacimido Salgodor, also known as Alberto Mojica Vaca, also known as Renee Salgado-Casimiro, also known as Ruben Mendez Mojica, also known as Alberto Mojica, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-20011
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 1, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rosa Alexander Eliades, Eliades Law PLLC, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Renee Salgado Casimiro presents arguments that he initially conceded were foreclosed by United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008), which held that even after Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), a second state conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance qualifies as an aggravated felony that supports the imposition of an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Because the arguments were foreclosed at the time, the Government moved for summary affirmance.

After the summary-affirmance motion was filed, the Supreme Court held in an immigration proceeding that “when a defendant has been convicted of a simple possession offense that has not been enhanced based on the fact of a prior conviction, he has not been ‘convicted’ under [8 U.S.C.] § 1229b(a)(3) of a ‘felony punishable’ as such ‘under the Controlled Substances Act.’ ” Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2589, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010). The Supreme Court noted that “[t]he mere possibility that the defendant’s conduct, coupled with facts outside of the record of conviction, could have authorized a felony eonviction under federal law is insufficient....” Id.

Casimiro now moves, without opposition, to vacate the district court’s judgment and to remand for resentencing in light of Car-achuri-Rosendo. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, in light of Carachuri-Ro-sendo, Casimiro’s motion to vacate his sentence and to remand his case to the district court for resentencing is GRANTED. The motion to issue the mandate forthwith is also GRANTED. The Government’s motions for summary affir-mance and to suspend the briefing notice are DENIED. 
      
       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.