Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darwin Jesus MEJIA-GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-31
Citations: 690 F. App'x 175
Docket Number: No. 15-11134 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darwin Jesus MEJIA-GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darwin Jesus MEJIA-GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-11134 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 31, 2017
Amber Michelle Grand, Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jessica Graf, Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darwin Jesus Mejia-Guerra pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry into the United States after a prior removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court sentenced him to 36 months of imprisonment.
Mejia-Guerra challenges the application of the 16-level crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. First, the district court did not err when it applied the modified categorical approach to his prior conviction, See United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 671 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014). Second, the Government satisfied its burden in showing the applicability of the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) enhancement and, thus, the district court did not err in relying on the indictment. See United States v. Torres-Diaz, 438 F.3d 529, 535 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Herrera-Solorzano, 114 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 1997).
Finally, Mejia-Guerra avers that the district court violated his due process rights by imposing a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum under § 1326(a). As he concedes, this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-28, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
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.