Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40442/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40442-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Prudencio Canales-Bonilla
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40442

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE PRUDENCIO CANALES-BONILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-721-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, Jose Prudencio 

Canales-Bonilla was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment, which sentence 

included a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) due 

to Canales-Bonilla’s prior conviction for the California offense of rape of a 

spouse under California Penal Code § 262. Canales-Bonilla argues that the 

district court erred by convicting, sentencing, and entering judgment against 

 

* 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

November 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 15-40442 Document: 00513771586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
No. 15-40442

2

him “based on its determination that his 1997 California conviction for rape of 

a spouse qualified as a conviction for a ‘crime of violence’ under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 16(b) and thus one for an ‘aggravated felony’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).” 

Relying primarily on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), he

argues that the definition of a crime of violence in § 16(b), as incorporated by 

reference into the definition of an aggravated felony in § 1101(a)(43)(F), is 

unconstitutionally vague on its face. He further contends that this court 

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

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, urging that Canales-Bonilla’s arguments are foreclosed by our

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

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

Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses Canales-Bonilla’s 

facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b), and his challenge to our application of § 

16(b) on due process grounds.1 See id. Accordingly, the motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

The Government’s alternate motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED.

 

1 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. ___, 

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: 15-40442 Document: 00513771586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016