Filed: May 30, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-41271 Document: 00512647105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 12-41271 Fifth Circuit FILED Conference Calendar May 30, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BENITO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, Also Known as Benito Lopez-Hernandez, Also Known as Pastor Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5
Summary: Case: 12-41271 Document: 00512647105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 12-41271 Fifth Circuit FILED Conference Calendar May 30, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BENITO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, Also Known as Benito Lopez-Hernandez, Also Known as Pastor Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:..
More
Case: 12-41271 Document: 00512647105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 12-41271
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Conference Calendar May 30, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
BENITO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ,
Also Known as Benito Lopez-Hernandez, Also Known as Pastor Lopez,
Defendant−Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:12-CR-433-1
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 12-41271 Document: 00512647105 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2014
No. 12-41271
We granted appellant Benito Hernandez Lopez’s motion for summary
disposition and affirmed, United States v. Hernandez Lopez, 539 F. App’x 397
(5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), because Hernandez Lopez’s challenge to the denial
of an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) was foreclosed
by United States v. Newson,
515 F.3d 374, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2008). The Supreme
Court vacated and remanded “for further consideration in light of the position
asserted by the Solicitor General.” Garcia v. United States,
134 S. Ct. 1539
(2014).
Amendment 775 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which became effec-
tive November 1, 2013, after the decision by this court, provides that the gov-
ernment should not withhold the additional one-level reduction under
§ 3E1.1(b) based on interests not identified in the guideline, such as whether
the defendant agreed to waive the right to appeal. U.S.S.G. Manual, Supp. to
App. C, Amendment 775, at 43−46 (2013). In United States v. Villegas Pala-
cios, No. 13-40153,
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9493, at *2 (5th Cir. May 21, 2014)
(per curiam), we applied Amendment 775 to a case on direct appeal in which
the error was preserved and the government conceded error. The panel
announced that
the other judges on the Court have reviewed this opinion, and all active
judges have assented. The Court en banc therefore concludes Newson—
to the extent it may constrain us from applying Amendment 775 to
cases pending on direct appeal under our rule of orderliness—is abro-
gated in light of Amendment 775.
Id. n.1.
In light of the Supreme Court’s order and Villegas Palacios, the judg-
ment is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
2