Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Omar Orlando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-13
Citations: 693 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 17-40041 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Omar Orlando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Omar Orlando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40041 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed July 13, 2017
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Omar Orlando Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation and was sentenced to a 33-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, he renews his challenge to the district court's application of the eight-level aggravated felony enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). The gravamen of his position is that, in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the definition of a crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Therefore, he contends, his Texas conviction of evading arrest with a motor vehicle does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 16(b) and thus is not an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C).
As Rodriguez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 672-77 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert, filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259), in which we rejected a constitutional challenge to § 16(b) as facially vague.
Accordingly, Rodriguez's unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Rodriguez's alternative motion to hold his appeal in abeyance pending decisions by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez-Longoria and Lynch v. Dimaya, — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016) is DENIED. See Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).
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.