Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Alberto MONTELONGO-PUENTE, Defendant-Appellant
Carlos Alberto Montelongo-Puente pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States following a deportation that was subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. The district court used the 2014 Sentencing Guidelines to calculate the applicable guidelines sentencing range and sentenced him within that range to 57 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. This appeal timely followed.
At issue here is the application of a 16-level increase to Montelongo-Puente’s offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on the determination that his prior Texas conviction for aggravated robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of that Guideline. Montelongo-Puente acknowledges our previous holding in United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), that Texas robbery falls within the generic definition of robbery and thus qualifies as the enumerated offense of robbery for purposes of § 2L1.2’s 16-level enhancement. He argues, though, that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in Howard v. State, 333 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), has since interpreted the Texas offense of robbery so broadly that it no longer fits the generic definition of robbery. We have recently rejected this argument and reaffirmed the holding of Santiesteban-Hernandez. See United States v. Nunez-Medrano, 751 F. App'x 494, 498–500 (5th Cir. 2018). While Nunez-Medrano is not binding, it is persuasive. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4; Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006).
Because the Texas offense of aggravated robbery qualifies as generic robbery, the district court did not err in applying § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)’s 16-level enhancement here. In light of this conclusion, we need not address Montelongo-Puente’s argument that Texas aggravated robbery does qualify for the enhancement because it does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
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.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-20204
Decided: March 07, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)