Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Perez TREJO, also known as Juan Gabriel Perez Trejo, also known as Juan Gabriel Perez, also known as Juan Perez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-19
Citations: 578 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 13-11106
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Perez TREJO, also known as Juan Gabriel Perez Trejo, also known as Juan Gabriel Perez, also known as Juan Perez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 578
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Perez TREJO, also known as Juan Gabriel Perez Trejo, also known as Juan Gabriel Perez, also known as Juan Perez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-11106
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 19, 2014.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charles M. Bleil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Perez Trejo was convicted of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to serve 77 months in prison. In this appeal, he first contends that the district court erred by applying the 16-level crime of violence adjustment provided by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because the Texas burglary statute under which his prior conviction arose is indivisible and thus not amenable to the modified categorical analysis. This issue was recently decided adversely to Perez Trejo and is thus unavailing. See United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 176-78 (5th Cir.2014).
We reach a different result as to Perez Trejo's second appellate claim, that the district court reversibly erred by denying him the third point for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). This court first examines whether the district court committed any procedural errors, such as incorrectly calculating the advisory guidelines range. 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Next, we determine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable. 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
Amendment 775 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which became effective November 1, 2013, provides that the Government should not withhold the additional one-level reduction under § 3E 1.1(b) based on interests not identified in the guideline, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive the right to appeal. U.S.S.G. Manual, Supp. to App. C, Amendment 775, at 43-46 (2013). In United States v. Villegas Palacios, 756 F.3d 325, 326 (5th Cir.2014), decided after the district court's decision in this case, we concluded that Amendment 775 abrogated United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374 (2008), on which the district court relied, to the extent it would constrain us from applying Amendment 775 to a case on direct appeal. 756 F.3d at 326 n. 1.
In light of the amendment to § 3E1.1, the holding in Villegas Palacios, and the Government's concession of error in the instant case, we conclude that procedural error occurred when Perez Trejo was not given credit for the full three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See Villegas Palacios, 756 F.3d at 326. Additionally, a review of the record shows that the error is not harmless. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir.2009); cf. United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir.2008) (concluding that guidelines calculation error did not require reversal when district court said, " T believe that I have calculated the guidelines correctly, but even if I am wrong about the guidelines, this is the sentence that I would impose in any event.' "). Accordingly, Perez Trejo's sentence is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the district court for resen-tencing consistent with this opinion.
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.