United States v. Rodriguez-Flores, 25 F.4th 385

Defendant Josue David Rodriguez‑Flores pleaded guilty in 2020 to illegal reentry after a prior 2014 illegal‑reentry conviction and deportation.
His PSR classified a 2015 Texas conviction for sexual assault (Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(a)(1) with § 22.011(b) “without consent” provisions) as an "aggravated felony," exposing him to the § 1326(b)(2) 20‑year statutory maximum; Rodriguez‑Flores did not object to the PSR.
The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced him to 63 months’ imprisonment under the adopted guideline calculation; Rodriguez‑Flores appealed only to seek correction of the judgment (not resentencing).
Central legal question: whether § 22.011(b) is divisible (permitting the modified categorical approach) or indivisible (requiring the categorical approach), and thus whether a § 22.011(a)(1) conviction is categorically a crime of violence/aggravated felony for § 1326(b)(2).
The Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error (appellant failed to object below) and concluded Mathis divisibility analysis, Texas intermediate appellate decisions, and Fifth Circuit precedent control the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judgment should be corrected to reflect conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) instead of (b)(2) because the Texas sexual‑assault conviction is not categorically an "aggravated felony"	Government: § 22.011(b) is divisible or, at least, its divisibility is unsettled so error was not "clear or obvious;" applying the modified categorical approach, the prior conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony	Rodriguez‑Flores: § 22.011(b) is indivisible (lists alternative means), so categorical approach applies and a conviction under § 22.011(a)(1) is not categorically a crime of violence/aggravated felony; therefore he should be under § 1326(b)(1)	Court: § 22.011(b) is indivisible; under the categorical approach § 22.011(a)(1) is not categorically an aggravated felony; plain error found; REMAND to district court to reform the judgment to reflect conviction under § 1326(b)(1)

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means; sets divisibility/modified‑categorical test)
Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2013) (held § 22.011(a)(1) not categorically a crime of violence)
United States v. Urbina‑Fuentes, 900 F.3d 687 (5th Cir. 2018) (applied Mathis to find obvious indivisibility error despite pre‑Mathis precedent)
United States v. Guillen‑Cruz, 853 F.3d 768 (5th Cir. 2017) (plain‑error can be found without identical prior precedent when error is clear from statutes)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (establishes four‑part plain‑error review)
United States v. Reyes‑Contreras, 882 F.3d 113 (5th Cir.) (en banc opinion referenced) (examining reliance on state law and statutory text when highest state court is silent)
United States v. Ovalle‑Garcia, 868 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2017) (recognizes collateral consequences from § 1326(b)(2) classification)
Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (discusses considerations relevant to correcting judicial error on plain‑error review)