USA v. Rios Benitez, No. 20-10494 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 29, 2021.
Download PDF
Case: 20-10494 Document: 00515700577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 8, 2021 No. 20-10494 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Oscar Daniel Rios Benitez, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-1-1 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Oscar Daniel Rios Benitez appeals his 18-month, within-guidelines sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Rios Benitez asserts that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his prior Texas conviction for assault-family violence under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-10494 Document: 00515700577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2021 No. 20-10494 (b)(2) as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 and, thus, as an aggravated felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He contends that Texas assault-family violence does not qualify as an aggravated felony because it can be committed recklessly. The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting that Rios Benitez’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gracia-Cantu, 920 F.3d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 157 (2019). As Rios Benitez correctly concedes, his argument is foreclosed. See Gracia-Cantu, 920 F.3d at 253–55 (holding that assault causing bodily injury under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) and (b)(2) is a crime of violence under § 16(a)). He raises the issue only to preserve it for future review. Consequently, the Government is “clearly right as a matter of law,” such that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT. 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.
