Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0938-01.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. Israel PEREZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-10135 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/21/2016
    Gail A. Hayworth, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Israel Perez-Jimenez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment. The advisory guidelines calculations included an eight-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) for a prior, aggravated felony conviction based on Perez-Jimenez’s Texas convictions for burglary of a building and burglary of a vehicle. Perez-Jimenez now argues that the district court erred by characterizing his offenses as aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) for the purposes of convicting and sentencing him under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Relying on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), Perez-Jimenez argues that the definition of a crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which is incorporated by reference into § 1101(a)(43)(F)’s definition of an aggravated felony, is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Perez-Jimenez’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259).

Additionally, Perez-Jimenez challenges his enhanced sentence under § 1326(b), arguing that because the indictment did not allege a prior conviction, his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for a conviction under § 1326(a). He challenges the validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). Perez-Jimenez correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed.

The judgment of the district court 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.