
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian GOMEZ-UREABA, also known as Gerardo Gomez-Uribe, also known as Angel Uribe, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Silvano Garcia-Ibarra, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-10670 Cons. w/ No. 15-10870 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Gail A. Hayworth, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    James Matthew Wright, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, Gabriel Reyes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Carly Elizabeth Barton, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Adrian Gomez-Ureaba pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and received a within-guidelines sentence of 34 months in prison and a one-year term of supervised release. Silvano Garcia-Ibarra likewise pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, and he received a within-guidelines sentence of 18 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Each appellant was sentenced in accordance with a determination that his prior Texas conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle amounted to an aggravated felony under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) (2014), which incorporates the definition of crime of violence found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).

First, the appellants argue that, in light of Johnson v. United States, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), § 16(b) is facially unconstitutional. As they concede, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 677 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). Their argument that § 16(b) is unconstitutional as applied to them likewise fails, as the standard of § 16(b) can be straightforwardly applied to their prior convictions. See Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d at 677-78; see also United States v. Sanchez-Ledezma, 630 F.3d 447, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2011).

Finally, their argument that Johnson casts doubt upon Sanchez-Ledezma is unpersuasive. Because the former case is not squarely on point with the latter, we will not revisit the latter. See United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

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.
     