United States v. Lopez-Hernandez , 112 F. App'x 984 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    October 28, 2004
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-21078
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-
    Appellee,
    versus
    JOSE LUIS LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ,
    Defendant-
    Appellant.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-02-CR-88-ALL
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jose Luis Lopez-Hernandez (Lopez) challenges his conviction and sentence for having been
    found unlawfully in the United States subsequent to deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. As
    an initial matter, Lopez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b)(1)
    and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000). Lopez
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    , 235
    (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for further review. This court must follow the precedent in
    Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United
    States v. Dabeit, 
    231 F.3d 979
    , 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Lopez also argues that the district court should have suppressed his prior deportation as a
    violation of due process. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 
    186 F.3d 651
    (5th Cir. 1999). Lopez’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
    Lopez argues that the district court incorrectly increased his base offense level by 16 levels
    on the basis of his prior conviction in Georgia for family violence battery, an offense the district court
    deemed to be a crime of violence within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Because Lopez raises this
    argument for the first time on appeal, the sentence imposed by the district court, based on the
    adjustment, should be reviewed under the plain error standard. See United States v. Gracia-Cantu,
    
    302 F.3d 308
    , 313 (5th Cir. 2002).
    Lopez argues that GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-23.1(f), family violence battery, is not a crime of
    violence. The offense is defined as “intentionally caus[ing] substantial physical harm or visible bodily
    harm to another” person who is a family member. GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-23.1(a), (f). A crime of
    violence is defined as (I) “an offense . . . that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use
    of physical force against the person of another.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n. 1(B)(ii)(I)). The
    use of force “requires that a defendant intentionally avail himself of that force.” United States v.
    Vargas-Duran, 
    356 F.3d 598
    , 602 (5th Cir. 2004).
    The Georgia offense is results-oriented and does not contain a requirement that the offender
    apply force, but rather, leaves open the possibility that harm to the victim might result from omission
    -2-
    or from the actions of another person or animal controlled by the offender.** Therefore, it does not
    qualify for the 16-level adjustment under § 2L1.2. United States v. Calderon-Pena, ___ F.3d ___,
    
    2004 WL 1888407
    , *4 (5th Cir. 2004)(en banc); United States v. Gracia-Cantu, 
    302 F.3d 308
    , 310
    (5th Cir. 2002).
    The error is plain and must be corrected because the erroneous sentence affects Lopez’s
    substantial rights and impugns the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. See 
    Gracia-Cantu, 302 F.3d at 313
    . Accordingly, Lopez’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the
    district court for resentencing in accordance with Calderon-Pena and Vargas-Duran.
    CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED FOR
    RESENTENCING.
    **
    See J.A.T. v. State, 
    212 S.E.2d 879
    , 923-24 (Ga. App.
    1975)(siccing a dog on another amounts to battery).
    -3-