USA v. Hector Morales-Cardenas, No. 16-41206 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 21, 2017.
Download PDF
Case: 16-41206 Document: 00514560031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41206 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED July 18, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. HECTOR RUBEN MORALES-CARDENAS, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15-CR-1113-1 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM:** Hector Ruben Morales-Cardenas was convicted of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). He received a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on a prior Texas felony conviction Due to Judge Edward Prado’s retirement on April 2, 2018, this matter is being decided by a quorum. See 28 U.S.C. § 26(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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-41206 Document: 00514560031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 No. 16-41206 for evading arrest with a motor vehicle. On appeal, he acknowledged that his constitutional vagueness challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) was foreclosed by our 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. Morales-Cardenas, 677 F. App’x 200, 201 (5th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Dimaya. The parties have submitted a joint supplemental letter brief addressing the action we should take on remand. The parties agree that we have already held that Section 16(b) “remains incorporated into the advisory-only Guidelines for definitional purposes.” United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 540 (5th Cir. 2018). They also jointly acknowledge our precedent holding that the Texas felony of evading arrest with a motor vehicle satisfies Section 16(b). See United States v. Sanchez-Ledezma, 630 F.3d 447, 450–51 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Morales-Cardenas’s argument that his sentencing enhancement was erroneously imposed remains foreclosed by our precedent. 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.
