Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40976/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40976-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jose Emilio Vanegas-Martinez
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40976

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee, 

versus 

JOSE EMILIO VANEGAS-MARTINEZ, 

Defendant–Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:15-CR-1542-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Vanegas-Martinez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and 

 

* 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 7, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 16-40976 Document: 00513900738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2017
No. 16-40976

2 

sentence for, illegal reentry into the United States. He claims the district court 

committed reversible plain error by applying 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), because his 

California conviction of sexual battery by restraint is not an aggravated felony 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). In defining an aggravated felony, Section 

1101(a)(43)(F) incorporates the definition of a “crime of violence” under 

18 U.S.C. § 16. 

Vanegas-Martinez reasons that his California conviction is not an aggravated felony because Section 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face per 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). He concedes that his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 

831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) 

(No. 16-6259), and he requests that we summarily dispose of the appeal so he 

can seek further review. The government has filed an unopposed motion for 

summary affirmance based on Vanegas-Martinez’s concession. 

The parties are correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses VanegasMartinez’s facial constitutional challenge to Section 16(b). See GonzalezLongoria, 831 F.3d at 672–77. Though Vanegas-Martinez also argues that his 

California conviction does not meet the definition of a crime of violence under

Section 16(a), we need not reach that issue, given the result regarding 

Section 16(b). 

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is 

AFFIRMED. The government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED. 

Case: 16-40976 Document: 00513900738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2017