United States v. Mack Hinojosa ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-41414      Document: 00512456470         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/02/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 12-41414                                FILED
    Summary Calendar                       December 2, 2013
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    MACK LOPEZ HINOJOSA,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:12-CR-550-1
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Mack Lopez Hinojosa pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a
    convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to
    180 months of imprisonment, in accordance with the Armed Career Criminal
    Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Hinojosa appeals the application of the ACCA
    enhancement, arguing that his prior conviction for assault on a public servant
    in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(1) does not qualify as a violent
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 12-41414    Document: 00512456470     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/02/2013
    No. 12-41414
    felony under the ACCA. He first maintains that § 22.01 does not have as a
    necessary element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
    against the person of another, nor does the statute involve conduct that
    presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.             See
    § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). He also contends that in determining whether his prior
    conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under the ACCA, the sentencing
    court should have taken into consideration the sentence available for the Texas
    offense of simple assault, without reference to any victim-specific enhancement
    factors.
    We review the legal conclusions underlying a district court’s application
    of § 924(e) de novo. See United States v. Fuller, 
    453 F.3d 274
    , 278 (5th Cir.
    2006). A conviction for assault on a public servant pursuant to Texas Penal
    Code § 22.01(b)(1) constitutes a crime of violence pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 4B1.2(a). See United States v. Anderson, 
    559 F.3d 348
    , 355-56 (5th Cir. 2009);
    see also United States v. Mohr, 
    554 F.3d 604
    , 609 n.4 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting
    that this court has applied case law under the residual clause of § 924(e) to
    analyze the definition of crime of violence under § 4B1.2, and vice versa).
    Moreover, we recently held that a conviction for felony assault pursuant to
    Texas Penal Code § 22.01 constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the
    ACCA. United States v. Espinoza, ___ F.3d ___-, 
    2013 WL 5223494
    , at **4-5
    (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 2013). Accordingly, applying Espinoza and the Anderson
    definition, Hinojosa’s conviction for assault on a public servant pursuant to
    Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(1) was a violent felony for purposes of § 924(e).
    Thus, he has not demonstrated that the district court wrongly determined his
    base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4.
    In a separate yet related argument, Hinojosa argues for the first time,
    without citing any legal authority, that when determining whether an offense
    2
    Case: 12-41414    Document: 00512456470    Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/02/2013
    No. 12-41414
    qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA, sentencing courts should consider
    the maximum sentence generally prescribed for that offense (here, one year for
    simple assault), without any reference to any victim-specific sentencing
    factors.   The argument that the district court should disregard certain
    elements of the offense, such as the identity of the victim, and consider the
    various sentences available under a disjunctive statute, such as § 22.01 which
    criminalizes misdemeanor assaults and felony assaults, runs afoul of Supreme
    Court authority and has no merit.       Indeed, the Supreme Court recently
    reinforced the “categorical approach,” including the focus on “the elements of
    the state statute of conviction.” Descamps v. United States, 
    133 S. Ct. 2276
    ,
    2283 (2013).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-41414

Judges: Higginbotham, Dennis, Graves

Filed Date: 12/2/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024