Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CHAVEZ-RAMIREZ, also known as Ramon Chavez, also known as Raymon Chavez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-30
Citations: 224 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 06-10837
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CHAVEZ-RAMIREZ, also known as Ramon Chavez, also known as Raymon Chavez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CHAVEZ-RAMIREZ, also known as Ramon Chavez, also known as Raymon Chavez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10837
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 30, 2007.
Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ramon Chavez-Ramirez (Chavez-Ramirez) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an "aggravated felony" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C).
Given the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), Chavez-Ramirez's argument, as conceded by the Government, has merit. See United States v. Estrada-Mendoza, 475 F.3d 258, 260-61 (5th Cir.2007). Accordingly, Chavez-Ramirez's sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing in light of Lopez.
Because the Government has conceded that he is entitled to resentencing based on the district court's erroneous § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) enhancement, Chavez-Ramirez requests that he be allowed to withdraw the remaining issues raised on appeal. His motion to withdraw and remand should be granted.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED; MOTION GRANTED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.