United States v. Jose Ramirez Galvan ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-11653      Document: 00514240840         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/16/2017
    REVISED November 16, 2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 16-11653                                FILED
    Summary Calendar                       October 17, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JOSE LUIS RAMIREZ GALVAN, also known as Jose Ramirezgalvan, also
    known as Jose Ramirez, also known as Vicente Ortega-Ramirez,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:16-CR-47-1
    Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Jose Louis Ramirez Galvan pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the
    United States after he had been removed, and he received a 24-month term of
    imprisonment, which was within the advisory guidelines range. He argues on
    appeal that the district court erred in classifying his prior Texas sexual assault
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11653   Document: 00514240840    Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/16/2017
    No. 16-11653
    of a child offense as an aggravated felony and thus urges this court to remand
    for resentencing and for reformation of the judgment to delete the reference to
    8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), the statutory subsection that applies to those convicted
    of illegal reentry after having been removed following an aggravated felony
    conviction. Because Ramirez Galvan did not raise this issue in the district
    court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,
    
    564 F.3d 357
    , 368 (5th Cir. 2009).
    We have held that a similar Texas offense, indecency with a child, which
    punishes a person who “engages in sexual contact with a child” younger than
    17 years old, Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1), is an aggravated felony under 8
    U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) because it “by its nature, involves a substantial risk
    that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in
    the course of committing the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(b); United States v.
    Velazquez-Overa, 
    100 F.3d 418
    , 421-22 (5th Cir. 1996). We explained that it
    was “obvious” that crimes in which children are sexually molested “typically
    occur in close quarters, and are generally perpetrated by an adult upon a victim
    who is not only smaller, weaker, and less experienced, but is also generally
    susceptible to acceding to the coercive power of adult authority figures.”
    
    Velazquez-Overa, 100 F.3d at 422
    . We went on to explain that “[a] child has
    very few, if any, resources to deter the use of physical force by an adult intent
    on touching the child,” concluding that “[i]n such circumstances, there is a
    significant likelihood that physical force may be used to perpetrate the crime.”
    
    Id. That rationale
    extends to Ramirez Galvan’s offense, sexual assault of a
    child younger than 17 years old under Texas Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2), (c)(1),
    which punishes conduct that goes beyond mere sexual contact and specifically
    2
    Case: 16-11653       Document: 00514240840          Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/16/2017
    No. 16-11653
    covers explicit sexual acts involving a child. 1 Accordingly, the district court
    did not commit a clear or obvious error in finding that Ramirez Galvan’s sexual
    assault of a child conviction was an aggravated felony. See Puckett v. United
    States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
    1 This court previously concluded that Texas Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2) was an
    aggravated felony because it “comport[ed] with the generic meaning of ‘sexual abuse of a
    minor’ and ‘statutory rape.’” United States v. Rodriguez, 
    711 F.3d 541
    , 562 (5th Cir. 2013) (en
    banc). In reaching that conclusion, we determined that the generic definitions of those
    offenses required that the victim be younger than 18. See 
    id. at 560–61.
    The Supreme Court
    has since held that “the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires that
    the victim be younger than 16.” Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 
    137 S. Ct. 1562
    , 1568 (2017).
    Although Esquivel-Quintana abrogates Rodriguez’s age-specific holding, that case’s
    remaining holdings are still good law. See, e.g., Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 
    513 F.3d 476
    , 489 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 
    274 F.3d 881
    , 894 (5th
    Cir. 2001)).
    This court’s recent decision in United States v. Ovalle-Garcia, 
    868 F.3d 313
    , 314 (5th
    Cir. 2017), holding that Tennessee statutory rape is not an aggravated felony, does not control
    the outcome here because the court in that case did not address whether a sexual offense
    against a minor can qualify as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and 18
    U.S.C. § 16(b).
    3