IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40072

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUDY MARTINEZ-CASTILLO, also known as Maurio Gonzales, also known 

as Alfredo Noges-Saucedo, also known as Redolfo Martinez-Castillo, also 

known as Alfredo Martinez-Savavedra,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-204-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rudy Martinez-Castillo appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court committed reversible plain 

error by classifying his 1989 Texas conviction for burglary of a vehicle as an 

aggravated felony for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and § 1326(b)(2). 

 

* 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

November 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40072 Document: 00513768100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 16-40072

2

He argues that Texas burglary of a vehicle does not qualify as an aggravated 

felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) because it is not a generic burglary 

offense as defined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 598 (1990). He also 

argues that Texas burglary of a vehicle does not qualify as an aggravated 

felony pursuant to § 1101(a)(43)(F) because, under the reasoning in Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the crime of violence definition in 18 

U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance

asserting that Martinez-Castillo’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). In the 

alternative, the Government requests an extension of time in which to file a 

brief on the merits.

The Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses MartinezCastillo’s facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b).1 See id. at 677. Thus, we need 

not determine whether his Texas burglary of a vehicle conviction, or any other 

prior conviction, qualifies as an aggravated felony under other provisions of 

§ 1101(a)(43). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance 

is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 

1 The Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari on the issue whether § 16(b) is 

unconstitutional in light of Johnson in Lynch v. Dimaya, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2016 WL 3232911 

(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 15-1498), does not alter our analysis. We are bound by our own 

precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. See 

Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

 Case: 16-40072 Document: 00513768100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016