Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Guillermo TORRES-MATA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-01
Citations: 608 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 14-50961
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Guillermo TORRES-MATA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Guillermo TORRES-MATA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50961
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 1, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Juan Manuel Gonzalez, Gonzalez & Ote-ro, L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Guillermo Torres-Mata appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court erred in assessing a sixteen-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on a finding that he had a prior conviction for a crime of violence ("COV"). He contends that his 2007 Indiana conviction of battery with a deadly weapon is not a 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 interpretation of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). Although the statute of conviction does not specifically require the use of force, the prior conviction qualifies as a COV under § 2L1.2 because "the touching of an individual with a deadly weapon creates a sufficient threat of force to qualify as a crime of violence." United States v. Dominguez, 479 F.3d 345, 348 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Tejadas-Calderon, 234 Fed.Appx. 211, 211-12 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Juarez-Mejia, 337 Fed.Appx. 408, 409 (5th Cir.2009). Therefore, the district court did not err in assessing the increase.
The judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.