Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10047/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Rodriguez-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10047

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, also known as Jose Martinez Rodriguez, also 

known as Emmanuel Rodriguez-Barrera,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-309

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Rodriguez-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after 

deportation and was sentenced to 52 months of imprisonment with no term of 

supervised release. He appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court 

plainly erred in applying the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 

based on a prior conviction for a crime of violence. Rodriguez-Martinez 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10047 Document: 00513200615 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2015
No. 15-10047

2

concedes that the plain error standard of review applies because he did not 

preserve this issue by objection in the district court. See Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009).

The Government has the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the 

relevant and sufficiently reliable evidence the facts necessary to support the 

adjustment.” See United States v. Herrera-Solorzano, 114 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 

1997) (internal quotation omitted). The issue we must decide is whether the 

documents submitted by the Government are sufficient to prove the fact of 

Rodriguez-Martinez’s offense of conviction, whether it was assault with a 

deadly weapon under Texas Penal Code § 22.02, which is a crime of violence, 

or whether it was simple assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.01, which is not 

a crime of violence.

The district court relied on the order of deferred adjudication, the judicial 

confession, and the order adjudicating guilt. The documents relied on by the 

district court were reliable and sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Rodriguez-Martinez was previously convicted of aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon, a crime of violence. Rodriguez-Martinez has 

failed to show a clear or obvious error in the district court’s conclusion that he 

committed a crime of violence and so has failed to show that the district court 

plainly erred. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 

2008).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10047 Document: 00513200615 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2015