IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41123

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL CABRERA-RANGEL,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 5:17-CR-198-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Cabrera-Rangel appeals the sentence imposed for assault on a 

 

* 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

July 9, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41123 Document: 00514546458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2018
No. 17-41123

2

federal officer by physical contact. He was acquitted of assault on a federal 

officer by physical contact inflicting bodily injury. 

Cabrera-Rangel contends that the district court ignored the jury’s verdict

and impermissibly relied on acquitted conduct. He maintains that the assessment of his base offense level and the application of enhancements under

U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) and (3)(E) violated the Sixth Amendment because the 

determinations were premised on actions of which he was acquitted. CabreraRangel concedes that this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Watts, 

519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997), and that we have held that Watts is valid after United 

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He notes, however, that a reevaluation 

of Watts is necessary because it did not address whether consideration of 

acquitted conduct at sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment and that Watts

otherwise did not account for principles articulated in Booker and later

Supreme Court decisions.

A panel of this court may not overrule another panel’s decision without 

en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary Supreme Court decision. 

United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002). We have 

held that Watts remains valid following Booker, see United States v. Jackson, 

596 F.3d 236, 243 n.4 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 

399 (5th Cir. 2006), and the Court has not held otherwise, see Cunningham v. 

California, 549 U.S. 270, 274−94 (5th Cir. 2007). Cabrera-Rangel thus has not 

shown that the district court erred when it considered conduct of which he was 

acquitted. See Farias, 469 F.3d at 399

Cabrera-Rangel contends that his sentence is improper because the district court relied on judge-found facts as to his acquitted conduct; CabreraRangel maintains that, if only the facts encompassed by the verdict were considered, his sentence is unreasonable. He asserts that his sentence violates 

 Case: 17-41123 Document: 00514546458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2018
No. 17-41123

3

the Sixth Amendment and should be vacated. 

As Cabrera-Rangel concedes, his claim is foreclosed. Regardless of 

whether Supreme Court precedent has foreclosed as-applied Sixth Amendment 

challenges to sentences within the statutory maximum that are reasonable 

only if based on judge-found facts, our precedent forecloses such contentions. 

United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-41123 Document: 00514546458 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2018