United States v. Mendoza-Martinez ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50535
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CESARIO MENDOZA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-98-CR-1713-1
--------------------
_________________________
Consolidated with
No. 99-50633
Summary Calendar
__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL CALDERON-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 99-CR-5-ALL
--------------------
December 17, 1999
Nos. 99-50535 & 99-50633
-2-
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this consolidated appeal, Cesario Mendoza-Martinez
(Mendoza) and Manuel Calderon-Garcia (Calderon) appeal their
sentences for illegally reentering the United States following
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Their sole
contention is that the district court erred when it enhanced
their sentences 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)
for their prior convictions of an aggravated felony. The
aggravated felony relied upon by the district court in both cases
was a felony conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The
appellants argue that the offense of DWI is not an aggravated
felony because it is not a “crime of violence” as the term is
defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).
A sentence must be affirmed unless it was imposed in
violation of the law or was based on an erroneous application of
the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez,
169 F.3d 217, 218 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 100
(1999). This court reviews de novo a challenge to a district
court’s interpretation of the guidelines. Id.
The appellants’ argument is forestalled by this court’s
recent decision in Camacho-Marroquin v. INS, 188 F.3d 649 (5th
Cir. 1999), in which we held that DWI constitutes a “crime of
violence” as the term is defined in § 16(b). See id. at 652.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Nos. 99-50535 & 99-50633
-3-
Accordingly, the sentences of Mendoza and Calderon are, in all
respects
AFFIRMED.