United States v. Juan Morales-Leon

Case: 15-41217 Document: 00513798968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-41217 FILED
Summary Calendar December 15, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN MORALES-LEON, also known as Juan L. Morales,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:15-CR-209-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Morales-Leon appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty
plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. He contends that the district court committed reversible plain error by
classifying his 1997 Illinois conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse as
a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and, thus, an aggravated felony for
purposes of § 1326(b)(2). Morales-Leon argues that his prior conviction does
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-41217 Document: 00513798968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
No. 15-41217
not qualify as an aggravated felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F)
because, under the reasoning in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551(2015), the crime of violence definition in § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague.
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance
asserting that Morales-Leon’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision
in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc),
petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). In the alternative, the
Government requests an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.
The Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses Morales-
Leon’s facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b), as well as his challenge to our
application of § 16(b) on due process grounds. See id. at 677. Accordingly, the
Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative
motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
2