IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11760

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL ZAMORA-ALONSO,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 16-11761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL ZAMORA-ALONSO, also known as Miguel Angel ZamoraAlonso,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-143-1

USDC No. 3:16-CR-390-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 19, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11760 Document: 00514080289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2017
No. 16-11760

c/w No. 16-11761

2

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Angel Zamora-Alonso appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He also appeals the revocation of his 

supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. 

Zamora-Alonso argues that, with regard to the sentence imposed for his 

illegal reentry conviction, the district court committed reversible plain error in 

assessing a 16-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) 

in light of his Texas conviction for aggravated assault under Texas Penal Code 

§ 22.02. He maintains that the offense does not have as an element the use, 

attempted use, or threatened use of force and does not conform to the generic 

definition of aggravated assault. As to the revocation of his supervised release, 

Zamora-Alonso challenges the validity of the transfer of jurisdiction from the 

Western District of Texas to the Northern District of Texas. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3605. He contends that the Northern District lacked jurisdiction to 

adjudicate violations of his supervision that were committed before the 

Northern District accepted jurisdiction over his supervised release imposed in 

the Western District.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance. The Government 

asserts that Zamora-Alonso’s challenge to the 16-level adjustment is foreclosed 

by United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 200-01 (5th Cir. 2007), in 

which we determined that the Texas offense of aggravated assault is a crime 

of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). See also United States v. Shepherd, 848 

F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming the validity of Guillen-Alvarez

 

* 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.

 Case: 16-11760 Document: 00514080289 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2017
No. 16-11760

c/w No. 16-11761

3

after Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016)). The Government notes 

that Zamora-Alonso’s claims as to the transfer of jurisdiction for his supervised 

release are foreclosed by United States v. Fernandez, 379 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 

2004).

Zamora-Alonso acknowledges that his appellate issues are foreclosed by 

Guillen-Alvarez and Fernandez. He argues that those decisions were wrongly

decided, and he raises the arguments to preserve them for further review. One 

panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another absent an en banc 

or superseding Supreme Court decision. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299 

F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).

Therefore, summary affirmance is proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. 

v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for 

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 

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

file a brief is DENIED. 

 Case: 16-11760 Document: 00514080289 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2017