United States v. Trujillo, 4 F.4th 287

In 1995 Juan Trujillo was convicted in Texas of intoxication manslaughter (Tex. Penal Code §49.08(a)) and sentenced to ten years; he was deported and later reentered the U.S. multiple times.
In 2017 Trujillo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry; the indictment and PSR classified his 1995 Texas conviction as an "aggravated felony," charging him under 8 U.S.C. §1326(b)(2) (20-year statutory maximum).
Trujillo did not object to the PSR or at sentencing; the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 72 months (well below either the ten- or twenty-year statutory maximum).
On appeal the Government conceded that Texas intoxication manslaughter does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. §16(a), so §1326(b)(2) was incorrectly applied.
The Fifth Circuit concluded the Texas statute requires only negligent/accidental causation and therefore does not meet §16(a)’s "use of physical force" element as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The court reformed the judgment to reflect conviction and sentencing under §1326(b)(1) (ten-year statutory maximum) but declined to vacate and remand for resentencing because the error did not affect the imposed sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tex. Penal Code §49.08(a) intoxication manslaughter is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. §16(a)	Government conceded the Texas offense does not qualify under §16(a).	Trujillo argued the statute requires only accidental or negligent causation and thus is not a §16(a) crime.	Court held §49.08(a) is not a §16(a) "crime of violence" (Leocal controlling); §1326(b)(2) classification was erroneous.
Whether the forfeited error is reviewed for plain error	Government argued plain-error review applies because Trujillo forfeited objection.	Trujillo argued the misclassification was erroneous and affected rights.	Court applied plain-error standard, found the error clear/obvious, and reformed the judgment to §1326(b)(1).
Whether the misclassification affected Trujillo's sentence and requires remand	Government argued the sentence was within the Guidelines, below the correct statutory max, and the record shows the statutory max did not influence sentencing.	Trujillo sought vacatur and remand to allow the district court to consider whether the error influenced sentencing.	Court held there is no indication the error affected sentencing, refused remand, and affirmed the sentence as reformed.

Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2004) (interpreting §16(a) to require more than negligent or accidental conduct to qualify as a "crime of violence").
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (U.S. 2018) (holding §16(b) unconstitutionally vague).
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error review framework).
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (defendant must show the error affected the outcome to warrant remand).
United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2018) (reforming §1326 judgments when misclassified under §1326(b)(2)).
United States v. Ovalle-Garcia, 868 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2017) (unlawful reentry after an aggravated felony can itself be an aggravated felony).
United States v. Castaneda-Lozoya, 812 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (applying plain-error review).
United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2020) (defendant bears burden to demonstrate plain-error prongs).