UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ HIDALGO (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesus RAMIREZ-HIDALGO, also known as Jesus Hidalgo Ramirez, also known as Josue Godoy, also known as Josue Isidro Godoy Ramirez, Defendant - Appellant

No. 17-20084

Decided: July 31, 2018

Before BARKSDALE and OWEN, Circuit Judges.1 John A. Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kathryn Shephard, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In United States v. Ramirez-Hidalgo, 707 F. App'x 850 (5th Cir. 2018), our court affirmed appellant’s sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment. As relevant here, we held, pursuant to United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), under which the district court concluded Ramirez had been convicted of a “crime of violence”, was not unconstitutionally vague. On 17 April 2018, however, the Supreme Court, in Sessions v. Dimaya, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 1210, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018), held § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague.

As a result, the Court, for the case at hand, granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded to our court “for further consideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya”, with the judgment’s being entered on 27 July 2018. Ramirez-Hidalgo v. United States, No. 17-7793, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2676, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2018 WL 985565 (U.S. 25 June 2018).

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to district court for further proceedings consistent with Dimaya.

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PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.