United States v. Carlos Montelongo-Puente ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 18-20204      Document: 00514863405         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/07/2019
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 18-20204                            FILED
    Summary Calendar                      March 7, 2019
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    CARLOS ALBERTO MONTELONGO-PUENTE,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:17-CR-493-1
    Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Carlos Alberto Montelongo-Puente pleaded guilty to being found
    unlawfully present in the United States following a deportation that was
    subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. The district court used
    the 2014 Sentencing Guidelines to calculate the applicable guidelines
    sentencing range and sentenced him within that range to 57 months of
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-20204    Document: 00514863405     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/07/2019
    No. 18-20204
    imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. This appeal
    timely followed.
    At issue here is the application of a 16-level increase to Montelongo-
    Puente’s offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on the
    determination that his prior Texas conviction for aggravated robbery is a crime
    of violence for purposes of that Guideline. Montelongo-Puente acknowledges
    our previous holding in United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 
    469 F.3d 376
    , 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by United States v.
    Rodriguez, 
    711 F.3d 541
    (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), that Texas robbery falls
    within the generic definition of robbery and thus qualifies as the enumerated
    offense of robbery for purposes of § 2L1.2’s 16-level enhancement. He argues,
    though, that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in Howard v. State, 
    333 S.W.3d 137
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), has since interpreted the Texas offense of
    robbery so broadly that it no longer fits the generic definition of robbery. We
    have recently rejected this argument and reaffirmed the holding of
    Santiesteban-Hernandez. See United States v. Nunez-Medrano, 751 F. App’x
    494, 498–500 (5th Cir. 2018).    While Nunez-Medrano is not binding, it is
    persuasive. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4; Ballard v. Burton, 
    444 F.3d 391
    , 401 & n.7.
    Because the Texas offense of aggravated robbery qualifies as generic
    robbery, the district court did not err in applying § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)’s 16-level
    enhancement here.      In light of this conclusion, we need not address
    Montelongo-Puente’s argument that Texas aggravated robbery does qualify for
    the enhancement because it does not have as an element the use, attempted
    use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-20204

Filed Date: 3/8/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021