Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0339-01.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. Omar Orlando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-40041 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed July 13, 2017
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Omar Orlando Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation and was sentenced to a 33-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)(l)(C). The gravamen of his position 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 Texas conviction of evading arrest with a motor vehicle 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)(l)(C).

As Rodriguez 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, Rodriguez’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Rodriguez’s alternative motion to hold his appeal in abeyance pending decisions by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez-Longoria and Lynch v. Dimaya, — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016) is DENIED. See Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.