United States v. Ramon Arambula ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-40330      Document: 00515490181         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/15/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-40330                         United States Court of Appeals
    Summary Calendar
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 15, 2020
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    RAMON MARTIN ARAMBULA,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:17-CR-728-6
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Ramon Martin Arambula appeals his 120-month sentence for possession
    of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that he
    should not have been sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1
    because the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, which defines terms for § 4B1.1,
    requires an offense-conduct specific analysis and that the documentation
    submitted for his 1994 Texas robbery conviction did not set forth his conduct.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-40330     Document: 00515490181      Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/15/2020
    No. 19-40330
    Arambula did not raise his commentary-based challenge to the career
    offender enhancement in the district court. Therefore, we review for plain
    error. See United States v. Neal, 
    578 F.3d 270
    , 272 (5th Cir. 2009). To show
    plain error, Arambula must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and
    that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135
    (2009).
    Although the district may engage in an offense-conduct based analysis
    of a defendant’s conviction to determine if it qualifies as a crime of violence
    under § 4B1.1, in light of the commentary to § 4B1.2, it need not do so if the
    offense of conviction categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under an
    elements-based analysis. See United States v. Lipscomb, 
    619 F.3d 474
    , 477-78
    (5th Cir. 2010). This court has held that Texas simple robbery, under Texas
    Penal Code § 29.02(1), qualifies as a crime of violence under the Armed Career
    Criminal Act, whether the robbery is committed by force or threat because it
    has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
    United States v. Burris, 
    920 F.3d 942
    , 958 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed
    (U.S. Oct. 3, 2019), (No. 19-6186).
    Because this court has routinely applied its holdings under the ACCA to
    analyze the definition of crimes of violence under § 4B1.2, see United States v.
    Mohr, 
    554 F.3d 604
    , 609 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2009), Arambula’s 1994 robbery
    conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under 
    Burris, 920 F.3d at 958
    ,
    irrespective of how he committed the offense. Thus, Arambula fails to establish
    that the district court plainly erred, see 
    Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135
    , and the
    judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-40330

Filed Date: 7/15/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/15/2020