07-40089•Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Gilberto Chavez-Sifuentes
07-40089Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit19 de fev. de 2008
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-40089
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GILBERTO CHAVEZ-SIFUENTES
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:06-CR-683-1
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gilberto Chavez-Sifuentes appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence
for being found in the United States following a prior deportation, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Chavez-Sifuentes argues that the district court erred in
imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his
prior Texas conviction for aggravated assault is not a crime of violence under the
Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that the Texas crime of aggravated assault
has a broader definition than most other definitions of aggravated assault
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 19, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-40089
2
because it may be committed by threatening the victim with a weapon. The
Texas statute, TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02, is substantially similar to the
definition of “aggravated assault” under the Model Penal Code and thus qualifies
as the enumerated offense of “aggravated assault” under the Guidelines. See
United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-201 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
128 S. Ct. 418 (2007).
In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Chavez-Sifuentes
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 argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United States v.
Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 872
(Jan. 7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.