United States v. Vela-Ornelas ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-51146
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JULIO CESAR VELA-ORNELAS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. EP-00-CR-885-1-H
    - - - - - - - - - -
    November 8, 2001
    Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Julio Cesar Vela-Ornelas appeals the 46-month term of
    imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of
    being found in the United States following removal, in violation
    of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   He contends that the district court erred by
    increasing his offense level 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on his prior felony conviction of driving
    while intoxicated (“DWI”).   He notes pursuant to this court’s
    decision in United States v. Chapa-Garza, 
    243 F.3d 921
    , 927 (5th
    Cir. 2001), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 
    262 F.3d 479
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 00-51146
    -2-
    (5th Cir. 2001), that a Texas felony DWI conviction is not a
    “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and thus is
    not an aggravated felony for the purpose of a 16-level adjustment
    under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).   The Government has filed an
    unopposed motion to remand for resentencing acknowledging that
    the district court, which did not have the benefit of Chapa-Garza
    when it sentenced Vela-Ornelas, erred in applying the 16-level
    adjustment.
    The Government’s motion to remand is GRANTED, the sentence
    is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for resentencing in light
    of Chapa-Garza.   The motion to expedite is DENIED.