Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector PARRALES-GUZMAN, also known as Hector Guzman Parrales, also known as Hector Guzman Perales, also known as Hector Parrales Guzman, also known as Hector Perales-Guzman, also known as Hector Parrales, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-08
Citations: 700 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: No. 16-20700 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector PARRALES-GUZMAN, also known as Hector Guzman Parrales, also known as Hector Guzman Perales, also known as Hector Parrales Guzman, also known as Hector Perales-Guzman, also known as Hector Parrales, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector PARRALES-GUZMAN, also known as Hector Guzman Parrales, also known as Hector Guzman Perales, also known as Hector Parrales Guzman, also known as Hector Perales-Guzman, also known as Hector Parrales, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-20700 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed November 8, 2017
Katherine Lisa Haden, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S, Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Frank Aguilar, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hector Parrales-Guzman appeals his conviction of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1826(a) and (b)(1). He contends that his prior removal ultimately rested on the application of the crime of violence definition in 8 U.S.C. § 16(b), which he argues is unconstitutionally vague. He correctly acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 672 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). Accordingly, we GRANT the Government's motion for summary affirmance, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. The Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecéssary.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.