United States v. Aaron Hernandez , 690 F. App'x 272 ( 2017 )

Case: 15-51084 Document: 00514027748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-51084 FILED
Summary Calendar June 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
AARON HERNANDEZ,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:15-CR-157-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Aaron Hernandez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm and was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he
argues that the district court erred by assessing a base offense level of 24
pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(2) based in part
on his prior Texas conviction for possession of cocaine. Because Hernandez
objects to the application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 on a different ground than was
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-51084 Document: 00514027748 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2017
No. 15-51084
raised in the district court, we review the issue for plain error only. See Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420
F.3d 454, 455-56 (5th Cir. 2005).
Hernandez’s challenge to his sentence is unavailing. Under U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(a)(2), the base offense level is 24 if the defendant has two prior felony
convictions for controlled substance offenses or crimes of violence. Hernandez’s
prior Texas convictions for burglary of a habitation and assault by
strangulation are both crimes of violence under the Guidelines for purposes of
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. See United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir.
2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1359 (2017); United States v. Howell, 838 F.3d
489, 492 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1108 (2017). Thus, Hernandez
cannot show that the purported error affected his substantial rights. See
Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2