United States v. Jose Ramos , 690 F. App'x 880 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-41483      Document: 00514038038         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/19/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 16-41483                               FILED
    Summary Calendar                         June 19, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JOSE ARMANDO RAMOS, also known as Jose Marquez-Ramos,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:16-CR-380-1
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Jose Armando Ramos appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry.
    He argues that his prior conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas
    Penal Code § 22.02 was improperly characterized as a crime of violence for
    purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). He also argues that the entry of
    judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was erroneous because Texas aggravated
    assault is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 16-41483    Document: 00514038038     Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/19/2017
    No. 16-41483
    defines aggravated felony by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16. Ramos failed to object
    to these determinations in the district court; therefore, we review for plain
    error. See United States v. Henao-Melo, 
    591 F.3d 798
    , 801 (5th Cir. 2009); see
    also Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009).
    In United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 
    489 F.3d 197
    , 199-01 (5th Cir. 2007),
    we held that a conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas Penal
    Code § 22.02 qualifies as the enumerated offense of aggravated assault, and,
    thus, a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Guillen-Alvarez
    remains valid after Mathis v. United States, 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
    (2016). United
    States v. Shepherd, 
    848 F.3d 425
    , 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017). We are bound by our
    own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the
    Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc. See United States v. Setser, 
    607 F.3d 128
    , 131 (5th Cir. 2010).
    We have also rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of § 16(b) based
    on Johnson v. United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
    (2015). See United States v.
    Gonzalez-Longoria, 
    831 F.3d 670
    , 672-79 (5th Cir.) (en banc), petition for cert.
    filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The grant of certiorari in Lynch v. Dimaya,
    
    137 S. Ct. 31
    (2016), does not alter our holding in Gonzalez-Longoria. See
    
    Setser, 607 F.3d at 131
    . The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2