United States v. Oscar Segura-Romero

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 6, 2019
• Docket: 17-20561
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-20561 Document: 00515107409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 17-20561 FILED Summary Calendar September 6, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR SEGURA-ROMERO, also known as Oscar Romero Sequra, also known as Oscar Segura, also known as Oscar R. Segura Romero, also known as Oscar R. Segura, also known as Romero Segura, also known as Oscar Romero, also known as Oscar Segura Romero,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-112-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Oscar Segura-Romero appeals his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation after having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony. He argues that his conviction under Texas Penal Code §§ 22.01(a)(1) and (b)(2) did not constitute an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-20561 Document: 00515107409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2019

No. 17-20561

Government has moved, unopposed, for summary affirmance and, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Segura-Romero’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gracia- Cantu, 920 F.3d 252, 254 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 25, 2019) (No. 18-1593). Gracia-Cantu held that a prior conviction for Assault- Family Violence under Texas Penal Code §§ 22.01(a)(1) and (b)(2) fell within 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), thereby qualifying as a crime of violence and an aggravated felony for purposes of § 1326(b)(2). 920 F.3d at 254. Summary affirmance is therefore appropriate. Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED AS MOOT, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.