Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. v. MATA-ORTIZ, 242 Fed.Appx. 253 (5th Cir. 2007)
United States, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramiro MATA-ORTIZ,Defendant-Appellant., 242 F. App'x 253 (5th Cir. 2007)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2007-09-18
- Topic
- general
U.S. v. MATA-ORTIZ, 242 Fed.Appx. 253 (5th Cir. 2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramiro MATA-ORTIZ,Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-41302 Summary Calendar.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. September 18, 2007. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. MATA-ORTIZ, 242 Fed.Appx. 253 (5th Cir. 2007). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
U.S. v. MATA-ORTIZ,242 Fed.Appx. 253(5th Cir. 2007)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramiro MATA-ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41302 Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
September 18, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Arturo Villarreal, III, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, for Defendants-Appellant.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Arturo Villarreal, III, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, for Defendants-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 5:05-CR-459-ALL.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Mata-Ortiz (Mata) appeals following his guilty plea to being illegally present in the United States following a prior deportation, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The district court increased Mata's base offense level by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because it determined that Mata's prior conviction in Tennessee for reckless aggravated assault was a crime of violence. Mata argues that the enhancement was improper because the Tennessee offense is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of aggravated assault. Mata's argument is unavailing in light of our decision inUnited States v. Mungia-Partillo,484 F.3d 813,816-17(5th Cir. 2007).
In light ofApprendi v. New Jersey,530 U.S. 466,120 S.Ct. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d 435(2000), Mata also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is "fully foreclosed from further debate."United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,492 F.3d 624,625(5th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
In light ofApprendi v. New Jersey,530 U.S. 466,120 S.Ct. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d 435(2000), Mata also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is "fully foreclosed from further debate."United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,492 F.3d 624,625(5th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.