Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40724/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40724-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodolfo Carransa-Velasquez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40724

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO CARRANSA-VELASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-780

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodolfo Carransa-Velasquez (Carransa) appeals the 24-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends 

that the district court plainly erred by imposing the eight-level aggravated 

felony enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on a finding that 

his two 1999 Texas felony convictions for theft were aggravated felonies under 

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). Carransa argues that the Texas theft statute

 

* 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

February 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40724 Document: 00513369423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2016
No. 15-40724

2

encompasses conduct broader than the generic, contemporary definition of 

theft because it includes theft by deception, which can be committed by the 

appropriation of property with the owner’s consent, and we have defined 

generic theft as the taking of property without the owner’s consent. He 

concedes that this issue is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 

768 F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014), in which we held that the Texas theft statute, 

Texas Penal Code § 31.03, does not deviate from the generic crime of theft. 

However, Carransa contends that Rodriguez-Salazar conflicts with our earlier 

decision in Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 540-41 (5th Cir. 2008), in which 

we held that the federal bank fraud statute does not meet the generic definition 

of theft. He asserts that, under the rule of orderliness, Martinez is the 

governing rule of decision for this issue. He further maintains the district 

court’s error affected his substantial rights because it resulted in a 

significantly longer term of imprisonment than he would have received under

the correct guidelines range. In the alternative, Carransa requests an en banc 

hearing to reconsider the Rodriguez-Salazar holding.

Carransa did not object to the district court’s imposition of the eight-level 

aggravated felony enhancement. Accordingly, as he concedes, our review is for 

plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009). To 

establish plain error, Carransa must show a forfeited error that is clear or 

obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. at 135. If he makes 

such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error only if it seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See 

id.

In Rodriguez-Salazar, we specifically addressed any possible conflicts 

with our earlier decision in Martinez. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d at 438. We 

reiterated our holding in Martinez and emphasized that the question of a theft 

 Case: 15-40724 Document: 00513369423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2016
No. 15-40724

3

crime was not before this court in that case and, therefore, Martinez was not 

controlling precedent. Id. In light of this distinction and our analysis of 

consent in Rodriguez-Salazar, Carransa has failed to show that we violated 

the rule of orderliness by not adhering to our previous holding in Martinez. See 

id. Accordingly, Carransa has not shown plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

134-35.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance. Summary 

affirmance is not appropriate, and the Government’s motion is DENIED. See 

United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th 

Cir. 2006). The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a reply brief is also DENIED. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40724 Document: 00513369423 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2016