Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10135/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Israel Perez-Jimenez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10135

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ISRAEL PEREZ-JIMENEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:14-CR-269-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Israel Perez-Jimenez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced 

to 30 months of imprisonment. The advisory guidelines calculations included 

an eight-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for a prior,

aggravated felony conviction based on Perez-Jimenez’s Texas convictions for 

burglary of a building and burglary of a vehicle. Perez-Jimenez now argues 

that the district court erred by characterizing his offenses as aggravated 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 16-10135 Document: 00513808316 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2016
No. 16-10135

2 

felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) for the purposes of convicting and 

sentencing him under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Relying on Johnson v. United 

States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), Perez-Jimenez argues that the definition of a 

crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which is incorporated by reference into 

§ 1101(a)(43)(F)’s definition of an aggravated felony, is unconstitutionally 

vague on its face. Perez-Jimenez’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). 

Additionally, Perez-Jimenez challenges his enhanced sentence under 

§ 1326(b), arguing that because the indictment did not allege a prior conviction, 

his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for a conviction under 

§ 1326(a). He challenges the validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

523 U.S. 224 (1998), in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 

and Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). Perez-Jimenez correctly

concedes that his argument is foreclosed. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-10135 Document: 00513808316 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2016