Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50961/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50961-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Guillermo Torres-Mata
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50961

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN GUILLERMO TORRES-MATA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-208

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Guillermo Torres-Mata appeals his sentence. He argues that the 

district court erred in assessing a sixteen-level increase under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a finding that he had a prior conviction for a crime 

of violence (“COV”). He contends that his 2007 Indiana conviction of battery 

with a deadly weapon is not a COV, because it is neither an enumerated offense 

nor has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.

 

* 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

July 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-50961 Document: 00513101062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-50961

2

This court reviews de novo the district court’s interpretation of the 

sentencing guidelines. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 

(5th Cir. 2008). Although the statute of conviction does not specifically require 

the use of force, the prior conviction qualifies as a COV under § 2L1.2 because 

“the touching of an individual with a deadly weapon creates a sufficient threat 

of force to qualify as a crime of violence.” United States v. Dominguez, 479 F.3d 

345, 348 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Tejada-Calderon, 234 F. App’x 211, 

211-12 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Juarez-Mejia, 337 F. App’x 408, 409 

(5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the district court did not err in assessing the 

increase.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-50961 Document: 00513101062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2015