Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41209/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41209-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fidel Flores
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41209

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FIDEL FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-439-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fidel Flores was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation. On 

appeal, Flores contends that the district court erred by entering a judgment 

reflecting that he was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and by applying 

an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). He argues that

his prior Texas conviction for the offense of evading arrest with a motor vehicle 

is not a crime of violence because the definition of crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. 

 

* 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

October 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 15-41209 Document: 00513738772 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2016
No. 15-41209

2

§ 16(b), as incorporated by reference into the definition of an aggravated felony 

in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), is unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). He further contends that we

cannot apply § 16(b) in this case without violating due process.

The Government has moved unopposed for summary affirmance in lieu 

of filing a brief. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, 

“the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that 

there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” United 

States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The summary procedure is 

generally reserved for cases in which the parties concede that the issues are 

foreclosed by circuit precedent. United States v. Lopez, 461 F. App’x 372, 374 

n.6 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Houston, 625 F.3d 871, 873 n.2 

(5th Cir. 2010) (noting the denial of summary affirmance where an issue was 

not foreclosed).1

Our recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, ___ F.3d ___, 

No. 15-40041, 2016 WL 4169127, at *2-*6 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2016) (en banc),

forecloses relief on Flores’s argument that in light of Johnson, § 16(b) is 

unconstitutionally vague on its face.2 However, Flores also raises an asapplied challenge. In Gonzalez-Longoria, we addressed an as-applied 

challenge to the appellant’s prior conviction of the Texas offense of Assault 

 

1 See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinions 

issued after January 1, 1996 are not controlling precedent but may be considered persuasive

authority); 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

2 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, ___ S. Ct. ___,

No. 15-1498, 2016 WL 3232911 (Sept. 29, 2016), does not alter the 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).

Case: 15-41209 Document: 00513738772 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2016
No. 15-41209

3

Causing Bodily Injury with a Prior Conviction of Family Violence and 

concluded that the standard provided by § 16(b) could be “straightforwardly 

applied” to the offense. 2016 WL 4169127, at *5. Our opinion in GonzalezLongoria does not foreclose relief on Flores’s as-applied challenge regarding 

his offense of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. Accordingly, summary 

affirmance is not appropriate in this case. See United States v. Holy Land 

Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d at 781.

Nevertheless, the standard of § 16(b) can be straightforwardly applied to 

Flores’s prior conviction, and § 16(b) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied 

to him. See 2016 WL 4169127, at *5; see also United States v. SanchezLedezma, 630 F.3d 447, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2011). Thus, there was no error in the 

district court’s determination that Flores’s prior conviction for evading arrest 

with a motor vehicle is an aggravated felony for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) 

and § 1326(b)(2). In light of our conclusion, further briefing is not necessary.

The motions for summary affirmance and for an extension of time to file 

a brief are DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-41209 Document: 00513738772 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/28/2016