United States v. Agustin Morales-Alfaro

Case: 13-20721 Document: 00512855924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-20721
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 3, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
AGUSTIN MORALES ALFARO, also known as Augustin Morales, also known
as Agustin A. Morales, also known as Agustin Morales-Alfaro, also known as
Augustine Morales,
Defendant - Appellant
Cons. w/ No. 13-20722
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
AGUSTIN MORALES-ALFARO, also known as Agustin Morales, also known
as Agustin A. Morales, also known as Agustin Morales Alfaro, also known as
Augustine Morales, also known as Agustin Alfaro Morales, also known as
Augustin Morales, also known as Agustine A. Morales, also known as Agustin
M. Alfaro,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-746-1
USDC No. 4:13-CR-482-1
Case: 13-20721 Document: 00512855924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2014
No. 13-20721
c/w No. 13-20722
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Agustin Morales Alfaro appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for
illegally reentering the United States after having been deported subsequent
to a felony conviction and his 23-month sentence. He argues that he should
not have received an eight-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)
because his Texas conviction for burglary of a motor vehicle is not an
“aggravated felony” for purposes of that guideline. He also appeals the
revocation of a prior term of supervised release.
Morales’s arguments challenging the eight-level enhancement are
foreclosed by this court’s holdings in United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 95 F.3d
369, 371-72 (5th Cir. 1996), and United States v. Rodriguez-Guzman, 56 F.3d
18, 20-21 (5th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds, as recognized in United
States v. Turner, 305 F.3d 349, 350 (5th Cir. 2002).
Morales presents no claims of error with respect to the revocation
proceeding or sentence. Thus, he has abandoned any issues on appeal
regarding the revocation judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
2