PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Ramon Hernandez-Ramirez appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that the district court reversibly erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under the crime of violence provision of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) and by imposing judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior Texas felony conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

*2 Case: 16-41253 Document: 00514080575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2017

No. 16-41253

Hernandez-Ramirez argues that Texas aggravated assault is broader than generic aggravated assault and, furthermore, does not require the use or threatened use of force for purposes of § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii). He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Guillen-Alvarez , 489 F.3d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 2007), but he argues that Guillen-Alvarez and United States v. Villasenor-Ortiz , No. 16-10366, ___ F. App’x ___, 2017 WL 113917, 3 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017), were wrongly decided. This court recently held that Guillen- Alvarez ’s holding remains valid after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). United States v. Shepherd , 848 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017). Moreover, this court is bound by its own precedent unless and until it is altered by the Supreme Court. See Wicker v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986). It is unnecessary to consider whether his conviction involves the use of force.

He also argues that the entry of judgment under § 1326(b)(2) was plainly erroneous because Texas aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which defines aggravated felony by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16. His conviction does not fall within § 16(a). See United States v. Villegas-Hernandez , 468 F.3d 874, 879 (5th Cir. 2006). Hernandez-Ramirez recognizes that this court has rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of § 16(b) based on Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). See United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria , 831 F.3d 670, 672-79 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). He notes, however, that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Sessions v. Dimaya , 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016), to resolve a circuit split over Johnson ’s effect on § 16(b). The grant of certiorari in Dimaya does not alter this court’s holding in Gonzalez-Longoria . See Wicker , 798 F.2d at 157-58.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.