Case ID: f-appx_251/html/0298-01.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. Gabriel HERNANDEZ-IGNACIO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40718
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 17, 2007.
    
      Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Hernandez-Ignacio pleaded guilty of being present illegally in the United States after deportation and was sentenced to 57 months in prison and two years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Hernandez-Ignacio argues that the 16-level crime-of-violence increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) is erroneous because his Texas conviction of aggravated assault does not qualify as a crime of violence under either definition applicable to that provision. In United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-201 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 418, 169 L.Ed.2d 293 (2007), this court held that aggravated assault under Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a) qualifies as a conviction for an enumerated offense of aggravated assault and a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The 16-level erime-of-violenee increase under that subsection was not imposed in error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Hernandez-Ignacio challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

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.