USA v. Amilcar Linares-Mazariego, No. 15-11187 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 21, 2017.
Download PDF
Case: 15-11187 Document: 00514560754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-11187 Conference Calendar FILED July 18, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. AMILCAR LINARES-MAZARIEGO, also known as Amilcar Linares, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15-CR-201-1 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM:** Amilcar Linares-Mazariego was convicted of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). He appealed his conviction and sentence but acknowledged that his constitutional vagueness Due to Judge Edward Prado’s retirement on April 2, 2018, this matter is being decided by a quorum. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). ** 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-11187 Document: 00514560754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 No. 15-11187 challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) was then foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 672 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), abrogated by Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). We granted his motion for summary disposition and affirmed the district court’s judgment. United States v. Linares-Mazariego, 677 F. App’x 182, 183 (5th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded this case to us for further consideration in light of Dimaya. The parties have submitted a joint supplemental letter brief that addresses the action we should take on remand. The parties agree that resentencing is not warranted. Consistent with a recent precedent, they agree we may reform the district court’s judgment to reflect a sentence according to Section 1326(b)(1) and affirm the judgment as modified. E.g., United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 542 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 25, 2018). Though we agree with the parties as to our authority to reform the judgment, we conclude that a change is clearer should it become relevant in the future if a new judgment is entered by the district court. Therefore, Linares-Mazariego’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED, but we REMAND this case to the district court for the limited purpose of entering a corrected judgment to reflect a conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). 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.
