Case: 15-41422 Document: 00513917774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-41422
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 20, 2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
REYNALDO MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:14-CR-918-1
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reynaldo Martinez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute
over 700 pounds of marijuana. The judge found that he had three prior
convictions that were “crimes of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, and so found
him to be a “career offender,” see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and calculated his sentence
accordingly. The judge found that Martinez’s prior convictions under Texas
law for (1) robbery, (2) aggravated robbery, and (3) burglary all constituted
“crimes of violence.”
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-41422 Document: 00513917774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2017
No. 15-41422
Martinez appealed. He argues that his convictions for robbery and
aggravated robbery are not crimes of violence because the residual clause of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), which includes any crime that “otherwise involves
conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” is
unconstitutional. He relies for support on the Supreme Court’s decision in
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that nearly
identical language in the violent felony definition in the Armed Career
Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b)(ii), was unconstitutionally vague.
While Martinez’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided
Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017),
which squarely held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to
vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. At this Court’s behest,
Martinez filed a supplemental letter brief addressing Beckles. Martinez
conceded that Beckles forecloses his arguments that his robbery and
aggravated robbery convictions are not crimes of violence, and thus effectively
concedes that, irrespective of the other arguments raised on appeal, he was
properly subject to the career offender guidelines. 1
Because Martinez concedes that the district judge committed no error in
imposing his sentence, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
1 Martinez admits that “irrespective of the subsidiary issues raised in the
supplemental briefing in this case, Mr. Martinez’s prior Texas robbery and aggravated
robbery convictions qualify as career-offender predicates under this Court’s precedent.” At
least two prior career-offender predicates are necessary to subject a defendant to the career
offender guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).
2