United States v. Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello

538 F. App'x 891
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided November 4, 2013·No. 13-11440·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello appeals his 30-month sentence, imposed below the guideline range, after pleading guilty to a single count of illegal re-entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. *892 § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in overruling his objection to a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction in North Carolina for felony taking indecent liberties with a child. Carmona-Bello asks us to reconsider our decision in United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 646 F.3d 778 (11th Cir.2011), where we held that a violation of the North Carolina statute that prohibits taking indecent liberties with a minor constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, and, thus, a crime of violence for the purpose of applying an offense-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).

“Under the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless or until it is overturned by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because our holding in Ramirez-Garcia is directly applicable to Carmona-Bello’s case, and it has not been overturned by this court en banc or by the United States Supreme Court, we conclude that the district court correctly applied the 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello, 538 F. App'x 891 (11th Cir. 2013).

538 F. App'x 891 (United States v. Jonathan Mauricio Carmona-Bello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Ramirez-Garcia
646 F.3d 778 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Vega-Castillo
540 F.3d 1235 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)