Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Perez MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-21
Citations: 610 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 14-51094
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Perez MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Perez MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-51094
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 21, 2015.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Munoz appeals the sentence for his conviction of being unlawfully in the United States following deportation after a felony conviction. He claims that the district court erred by imposing the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on its determination that his 2006 conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-2(A) and 30-3-l(B) (West 1978) does not constitute a "crime of violence" ("COV") because it is neither an enumerated offense nor has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.
This court reviews de novo the district court's characterization of an offense as a COV. United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir.2005). Munoz's conviction qualifies as a COV because apprehension-causing aggravated assault creates a sufficient threat of physical force to constitute a COV. See United States v. Carrasco-Tercero, 745 F.3d 192, 195-99 (5th Cir.2014); United States v. Silva, 608 F.3d 663, 670-73 (10th Cir.2010); United States v. Licon-Nunez, 230 Fed.Appx. 448, 451-52 (5th Cir.2007). Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.