USA v. Elvin Pineda-Oyuela, No. 15-40993 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40993 Document: 00513438415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-40993 Summary Calendar FILED March 24, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELVIN RAFAEL PINEDA-OYUELA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15-CR-282-1 Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elvin Rafael Pineda-Oyuela pleaded guilty to reentering the United States after having previously been removed and was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. In this appeal, he challenges the district court’s entry of a judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)— which provides for a maximum sentence of 20 years for an alien whose prior removal was subsequent to a conviction for an “aggravated 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40993 Document: 00513438415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 No. 15-40993 felony”—arguing that the qualifying prior felony, a 2000 Florida conviction for robbery, did not constitute an “aggravated felony” because he was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year in relation thereto. See § 1326(b)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Pineda-Oyuela asks this court to remand the case to the district court for reformation of the judgment to correctly reflect his conviction under § 1326(b)(1). The Government concedes that judgment was wrongly entered under § 1326(b)(2) for the reasons given by Pineda-Oyuela but contends that remand is unnecessary in light of this court’s authority to reform the judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. Because Pineda-Oyuela did not preserve this error in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). We agree that the district court committed clear or obvious error in entering judgment under § 1326(b)(2) because Pineda-Oyuela’s Florida robbery conviction, which resulted in a sentence only of probation, did not constitute an “aggravated felony,” as required for conviction under § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368-69 (5th Cir. 2009). Judgment should therefore have been entered under § 1326(b)(1). Nonetheless, because the district court’s error did not affect the sentence he received, Pineda-Oyuela fails to show that the error affected his substantial rights. See id. at 369; Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Accordingly, Pineda-Oyuela’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. We REMAND the case to the district court for the limited purpose of reforming the judgment to reflect Pineda-Oyuela’s conviction under § 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.
