
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Angel REYES-FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40108
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 11, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal, Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

Angel Reyes-Figueroa (Reyes) pleaded guilty to unlawfully attempting to enter the United States after deportation. After sentencing, Reyes appealed his sentence, specifically the eight-level aggravated felony enhancement based on an earlier conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV) under Texas law. Recognizing that circuit precedent foreclosed his argument, Reyes moved for summary affirmance so that he could seek review in the Supreme Court. We granted the motion and affirmed the district court. United States v. Reyes-Figueroa, 282 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir.2008). After Reyes petitioned for a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court vacated our decision and remanded the case for consideration in light of Chambers v. United States, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009). Reyes-Figueroa v. United States, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 998, 173 L.Ed.2d 286 (2009). Reyes has filed an unopposed motion to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. As the parties now agree, the district court committed a procedural error in sentencing Reyes, and we therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Armendariz-Moreno, 571 F.3d 490, 491-92 (5th Cir.2009).

Reyes’s motion is GRANTED, the sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     