United States v. Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello , 538 F. App'x 891 ( 2013 )

Case: 13-11440 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11440
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00079-LC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN MAURICIO CARMONA-BELLO,
a.k.a. David Saucedo,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(November 4, 2013)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11440 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello appeals his 30-month sentence, imposed
below the guideline range, after pleading guilty to a single count of illegal re-entry
of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, he
argues that the district court erred in overruling his objection to a 16-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction in
North Carolina for felony taking indecent liberties with a child. Carmona-Bello
asks us to reconsider our decision in United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 646 F.3d
778 (11th Cir. 2011), where we held that a violation of the North Carolina statute
that prohibits taking indecent liberties with a minor constitutes sexual abuse of a
minor, and, thus, a crime of violence for the purpose of applying an offense-level
enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
“Under the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding
precedent unless or until it is overturned by this court en banc or by the Supreme
Court.” United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because our holding in Ramirez-
Garcia is directly applicable to Carmona-Bello’s case, and it has not been
overturned by this court en banc or by the United States Supreme Court, we
conclude that the district court correctly applied the 16-level enhancement under
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
AFFIRMED.
2