Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0228-02.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. Jaime Adrian HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Also Known as Jaime Adrian Amaro Hernandez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-41382
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed May 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, Timothy William Crooks, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      
      Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jaime Hernandez-Hernandez pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and was sentenced to a 41-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, he 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 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 (“COV”) 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 COV under § 16(b) and thus is not an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and § 2Ll,2(b)(l)(C).

Hernandez-Hernandez concedes that 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. Moreover, the Supreme Court recently decided Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), wherein it declined to extend Johnson and held that “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.”

In view of the foregoing, Hernandez-Hernandez’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.