USA v. Mario Perdomo-Caballero, No. 14-20117 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-20117 Document: 00512968701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-20117 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 13, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. MARIO ROBERTO PERDOMO-CABALLERO, also known as Carlos Enrique Martinez, also known as Mario Roberto Perdomo, also known as Oscar Guarado, also known as Mario Roberto Perdomo Caballero, also known as Mario Perdomo, also known as Jose Francisco Vasqu Mejia, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-676-1 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mario Roberto Perdomo-Caballero appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation and his sentence of 69 months of imprisonment. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). For the first time on appeal, Perdomo-Caballero argues that the district court erred in 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-20117 Document: 00512968701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2015 No. 14-20117 calculating his offense level by adding 16 levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for a prior Texas conviction for aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. More specifically, he contends that the Texas offense of theft, which is incorporated into the Texas aggravated robbery offense, is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of theft because the Texas offense includes theft by deception. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 29.02, 29.03, 31.03. We recently rejected the argument that Texas theft is not equivalent to a generic theft offense due to the theft by deception provision of Texas Penal Code § 31.03(a). See United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014). Because Perdomo-Caballero’s prior offense qualifies as the enumerated offense of robbery under § 2L1.2’s definition of crime of violence, we do not address his second argument that his prior conviction is not a crime of violence under the residual “force” clause of that definition. See United States v. Olalde-Hernandez, 630 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.
