USA v. Jesus Marin-Arrellanes, No. 14-41338 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-41338 Document: 00513106301 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-41338 Summary Calendar July 7, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS MARIN-ARRELLANES, also known as Jesus Marin-Arellanes, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14-CR-1031-1 Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Marin-Arrellanes was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to serve 46 months in prison. Now, he challenges the district court’s determination that his prior North Carolina conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon was a crime of violence (COV) under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He argues that his prior conviction should not be 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-41338 Document: 00513106301 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 No. 14-41338 considered a COV or a § 1326(b)(2) aggravated felony because it lacks an overt act requirement. Because he did not raise this argument in the district court, we review for plain error only. To establish plain error, Marin-Arrellanes must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Marin-Arrellanes asserts that his current argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pascacio-Rodriguez, 749 F.3d 353, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2014). In that case we held that a Nevada conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, which likewise does not require an overt act, constituted a COV for purposes of the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement. Pascacio-Rodriguez rejected arguments similar to those raised by Marin-Arrellanes. In view of PascacioRodriguez, Marin-Arrellanes has not established clear or obvious error on the part of the district court. Although we affirm the district court’s judgment, summary disposition is not appropriate. See United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny Marin-Arrellanes’s motion for summary disposition. AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED. 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.
