United States v. Jennifer Vanmeter

689 F. App'x 809
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 24, 2017
Docket16-11184 Summary Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 689 F. App'x 809 (United States v. Jennifer Vanmeter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jennifer Vanmeter, 689 F. App'x 809 (5th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jennifer Vanmeter was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and appeals her within-guidelines sentence of 46 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. She contends that the court erred by calculating her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and designating her Texas conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as a qualifying crime of violence (“COV”) as defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2015). We review de novo whether the district court properly characterized a conviction as a COV. United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 198 (6th Cir. 2007).

Although Vanmeter contends that her Texas conviction does not constitute generic aggravated assault, she concedes correctly that her challenge in that regard is foreclosed by Guillen-Alvarez, id. at 200-01. See also United States v. Villasenor-Ortiz, No. 16-10366, 675 Fed.Appx. 424, 425-28, 2017 WL 113917, *2-3 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017) (per curiam) (reaffirming the continued validity of Guillen-Alvarez in the wake of Mathis v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d *810 604 (2016)). Vanmeter also avers that aggravated assault is no longer an enumerated offense under § 4B1.2 because Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), also invalidated § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause. In Bedeles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 892, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), the Court held that Johnson's holding was not applicable to the definition of a COV in § 4B1.2(a)(2) because the guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Bedeles therefore effectively forecloses Vanmeter’s theory based on Johnson.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Guillen-Alvarez
489 F.3d 197 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Mathis v. United States
579 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2016)
United States v. Roberto Villasenor-Ortiz
675 F. App'x 424 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
689 F. App'x 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jennifer-vanmeter-ca5-2017.