UNITED STATES v. MORALES CARDENAS (2018)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Hector Ruben Morales-Cardenas was convicted of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). He received a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on a prior Texas felony conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle. On appeal, he acknowledged that his constitutional vagueness challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) was foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 672 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), abrogated by Sessions v. Dimaya, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018). We granted his motion for summary disposition and affirmed the district court’s judgment. United States v. Morales-Cardenas, 677 F. App'x 200, 201 (5th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Dimaya.

The parties have submitted a joint supplemental letter brief addressing the action we should take on remand. The parties agree that we have already held that Section 16(b) “remains incorporated into the advisory-only Guidelines for definitional purposes.” United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 540 (5th Cir. 2018). They also jointly acknowledge our precedent holding that the Texas felony of evading arrest with a motor vehicle satisfies Section 16(b). See United States v. Sanchez-Ledezma, 630 F.3d 447, 450–51 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Morales-Cardenas’s argument that his sentencing enhancement was erroneously imposed remains foreclosed by our precedent.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: ** FN** Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.