USA v. Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello, No. 13-11440 (11th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-11440 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-11440 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00079-LC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JONATHAN MAURICIO CARMONA-BELLO, a.k.a. David Saucedo, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (November 4, 2013) Before WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-11440 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello appeals his 30-month sentence, imposed below the guideline range, after pleading guilty to a single count of illegal re-entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in overruling his objection to a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction in North Carolina for felony taking indecent liberties with a child. Carmona-Bello asks us to reconsider our decision in United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 646 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2011), where we held that a violation of the North Carolina statute that prohibits taking indecent liberties with a minor constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, and, thus, a crime of violence for the purpose of applying an offense-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Under the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless or until it is overturned by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court. United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because our holding in RamirezGarcia is directly applicable to Carmona-Bello s case, and it has not been overturned by this court en banc or by the United States Supreme Court, we conclude that the district court correctly applied the 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.