DocketNumber: 13-11440
Judges: Wilson, Pryor, Martin
Filed Date: 11/4/2013
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Case: 13-11440 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-11440 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00079-LC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JONATHAN MAURICIO CARMONA-BELLO, a.k.a. David Saucedo, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (November 4, 2013) Before WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-11440 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello appeals his 30-month sentence, imposed below the guideline range, after pleading guilty to a single count of illegal re-entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in overruling his objection to a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction in North Carolina for felony taking indecent liberties with a child. Carmona-Bello asks us to reconsider our decision in United States v. Ramirez-Garcia,646 F.3d 778
(11th Cir. 2011), where we held that a violation of the North Carolina statute that prohibits taking indecent liberties with a minor constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, and, thus, a crime of violence for the purpose of applying an offense-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). “Under the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless or until it is overturned by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Vega-Castillo,540 F.3d 1235
, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because our holding in Ramirez- Garcia is directly applicable to Carmona-Bello’s case, and it has not been overturned by this court en banc or by the United States Supreme Court, we conclude that the district court correctly applied the 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). AFFIRMED. 2