Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0237-01.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. Jose Guadalupe VEGA-ZAPATA, also known as Ricardo Gonzalez, also known as Victor Guadalupe Medina, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-41219 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 2, 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, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before KING, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Guadalupe Vega-Zapata pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to a 36-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, Vega-Zapata renews his challenge to application of the eight-level aggravated felony enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2Ll,2(b)(l)(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 (COV) in 18 U.S.C, § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Therefore, he contends, neither his prior Texas conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle nor his prior Texas conviction for assault of a public servant is a COV under § 16(b), and thus neither prior conviction is an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C).

As Vega-Zapata concedes, his argument is foreclosed by our decision in 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, Vega-Zapata’s 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.