Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41422/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reynaldo Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41422

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

REYNALDO MARTINEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:14-CR-918-1 

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Martinez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 

over 700 pounds of marijuana. The judge found that he had three prior 

convictions that were “crimes of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, and so found 

him to be a “career offender,” see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and calculated his sentence 

accordingly. The judge found that Martinez’s prior convictions under Texas 

law for (1) robbery, (2) aggravated robbery, and (3) burglary all constituted 

“crimes of violence.” 

 

* 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

March 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41422 Document: 00513917774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2017
No. 15-41422

2 

Martinez appealed. He argues that his convictions for robbery and 

aggravated robbery are not crimes of violence because the residual clause of 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), which includes any crime that “otherwise involves 

conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” is 

unconstitutional. He relies for support on the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that nearly 

identical language in the violent felony definition in the Armed Career 

Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b)(ii), was unconstitutionally vague. 

While Martinez’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided 

Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017), 

which squarely held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to 

vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. At this Court’s behest, 

Martinez filed a supplemental letter brief addressing Beckles. Martinez 

conceded that Beckles forecloses his arguments that his robbery and 

aggravated robbery convictions are not crimes of violence, and thus effectively 

concedes that, irrespective of the other arguments raised on appeal, he was 

properly subject to the career offender guidelines.1

Because Martinez concedes that the district judge committed no error in 

imposing his sentence, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 

1 Martinez admits that “irrespective of the subsidiary issues raised in the 

supplemental briefing in this case, Mr. Martinez’s prior Texas robbery and aggravated 

robbery convictions qualify as career-offender predicates under this Court’s precedent.” At 

least two prior career-offender predicates are necessary to subject a defendant to the career 

offender guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).

 Case: 15-41422 Document: 00513917774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2017