Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0370-01.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. Martin BOLANOS-GALVAN, also known as Martine Alvarado, also known as Martin Galvan Bolanos, also known as Martin Bolanos Galvan, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-20268 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed September 12, 2017
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kathryn Shephard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Martin Bolanos-Galvan pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation and was sentenced to a 36-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, he renews his challenge to the district court’s application of the eight-level aggravated felony enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The gravamen of his argument is that, in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the definition of a crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Therefore, he contends, his prior Texas felony conviction of assault on a police officer does not qualify as a crime of violence 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).

As Bolanos-Galvan concedes, 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. Accordingly, Bolanos-Galvan’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.