Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0259-02.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. Lugardo VAZQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-41687 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/06/2016
    Eileen K. Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, 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 REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lugardo Vazquez-Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment. His sentence was based in part on an eight-level enhancement for an aggravated felony pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C), The enhancement was imposed because Vazquez-Hernandez was convicted in Texas, prior to his removal, of assault of a public servant. Vazquez-Hernandez argues that the district court erred by characterizing the Texas offense of assault of a public servant as an aggravated felony 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. -, 136 S.Ct. 2561, 192 L.Ed.2d 669 (2015), Vazquez-Hernandez 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.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, urging that Vazquez-Hernandez’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). The Government is correct. See id. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . The recent grant of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court on the issue whether § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson in Lynch v. Dimaya, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016), does not alter our analysis. This court is bound by its own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. See Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986),