United States v. Aldavera-Rico ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                       IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-50164
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    FILEMON ALDAVERA-RICO,
    Defendant-
    Appellant.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. DR-99-CR-691-1
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    December 19, 2001
    Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
    PER CURIAM:*
    Filemon Aldavera-Rico (“Aldavera”) challenges the sentence he received following his guilty-
    plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Specifically, he renews his
    argument that the district court erred in assessing a 16-level increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
    2Ll.2(b)(1)(A), based on his felony driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) conviction, which was
    determined to be an aggravated felony. Aldavera contends that felony DWI is not “crime of violence”
    as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16 and is thus not an aggravated felony.
    In United States v. Chapa-Garza, 
    243 F.3d 921
    , 927-28 (5th Cir. 2001), decided after the
    district court sentenced Aldavera, t his court held that a felony DWI conviction is not a crime 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    violence and is thus not an aggravated felony for the purpose of a § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) 16-level
    enhancement. Aldavera has filed an unopposed motion to remand the case for resentencing based
    on Chapa-Garza. Because Chapa-Garza demonstrates that the 16-level enhancement was error, the
    motion is GRANTED. Aldavera’s sentence is VACATED, and this cause is REMANDED for
    resentencing. Because we so hold, Aldavera’s alternative argument that the enhancement was error
    under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000), is moot and is not addressed.
    VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTION GRANTED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-50164

Filed Date: 12/21/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021