Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41385/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41385-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Alberto Amaya-Guerrero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41385

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

MARIO ALBERTO AMAYA-GUERRERO, also known as Mario A. Amaya, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:14-CR-527-1 

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Alberto Amaya-Guerrero pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a 

previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court 

sentenced Amaya-Guerrero to 30 months of imprisonment−a sentence at the 

top of the recommended guideline imprisonment range. On appeal, AmayaGuerrero challenges the 8-level “aggravated felony” enhancement he received 

under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on his prior state conviction for injury to 

 

* 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

December 13, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41385 Document: 00513795752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2016
No. 14-41385

2 

a child in violation of TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.04. He argues that the definition 

of “aggravated felony,” which includes a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 

U.S.C. § 16(b), is void for vagueness. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, urging that Amaya-Guerrero’s arguments are foreclosed by this 

court’s recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (en banc), pet. for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The 

Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses Amaya-Guerrero’s 

facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b),1 see id., and Amaya-Guerrero does not 

make a separate as-applied challenge to § 16(b)’s application to his prior Texas 

offense for injury to a child. 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.

 

1 Although the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari on the question of whether 

§ 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague, see Lynch v. Dimaya, 2016 WL 3232911 (Sept. 29, 2016)

(No. 15-1498), 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).

 Case: 14-41385 Document: 00513795752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2016