Opinion
No. 15-20731
09-07-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LINO ISAAC CARRILLO-HERNANDEZ, also known as Lino Carrillo-Hernandez, also known as Lino Carillo-Hernandez, also known as Lino Isaac Carrillo, also known as Lino Isaac Hernandez Carrillo, also known as Lino Carrillo Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
Conference Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-476-1
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before DENNIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. --------
Lino Isaac Carrillo-Hernandez was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation and sentenced to thirty-two months of imprisonment. On appeal, Carrillo-Hernandez contends that the district court erred by applying an eight- level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and entering a judgment of conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), both based on a finding that his prior Texas conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle constituted an aggravated felony. Carrillo-Hernandez argues that this prior conviction cannot serve as an aggravated felony under either the Guidelines or § 1326(b)(2) because the incorporated definition in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague. We affirmed. United States v. Carrillo-Hernandez, 671 F. App'x 361 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
The Supreme Court granted Carrillo-Hernandez's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1212, 1223 (2018). In Dimaya, the Supreme Court held, consistent with Carrillo-Hernandez's argument regarding § 1326(b)(2), that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act. 138 S. Ct. at 1212, 1223. Accordingly, Carrillo-Hernandez is correct that his prior conviction cannot constitute an aggravated felony warranting judgment under § 1326(b)(2).
As we subsequently held in United States v. Godoy, however, § 16(b) remains validly incorporated into the advisory Guidelines for definitional purposes. 890 F.3d 531, 533, 539 (5th Cir. 2018) ("[W]hen § 16(b) is used by the nonbinding Guidelines solely for definitional purposes, vagueness-doctrine principles do not apply."). Accordingly, to the extent Carrillo-Hernandez challenges the calculation of his Guidelines range, his argument is without merit.
In light of Dimaya, we VACATE the district court's judgment and REMAND for entry of judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) rather than § 1326(b)(2).