USA v. Jorge Bacio-Gonzales, No. 16-40663 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 27, 2018.
Download PDF
Case: 16-40663 Document: 00514016100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-40663 Summary Calendar FILED June 1, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JORGE BACIO-GONZALES, also known as Jorge Bacio-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-894-1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Bacio-Gonzales appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien. He contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his prior Texas felony convictions for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a). Bacio-Gonzales argues, under Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), that the Texas 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-40663 Document: 00514016100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2017 No. 16-40663 burglary statute is not divisible and that not every violation of § 30.02(a) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015). The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Bacio-Gonzales’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 661924 (Mar. 20, 2017) (No. 16-7969). In the alternative, the Government requests an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits. The Government is correct that Uribe forecloses Bacio-Gonzales’s Mathis argument. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and 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.
