Case ID: f-appx_701/html/0378-01.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 SOTO-ORTIZ, also known as Epitacio Valenciana, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-41043 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 14, 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, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Soto-Ortiz appeals the 57-month within-guidelines sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Soto-Ortiz argues that the district court plainly erred in characterizing his prior convictions for Texas murder and aggravated assault as crimes of violence within the Guidelines, resulting in an additional criminal history point under U.S.S.G. § 4Al,l(e). He contends that the residual clause of the former version of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2015), is unconstitutional in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), where the Supreme Court held that nearly identical language in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. All of Soto-Ortiz’s arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Jeffries, 822 F.3d 192, 193-94 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied, 829 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1328, 197 L.Ed.2d 524 (2017) and Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.