United States v. Gomez
Opinion
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Humberto Yecid Castro Gomez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — [411] U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1892, 191 L.Ed.2d 767 (2015). In Teran-Salas, we determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that the defendant could be convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 458. Castro Gomez has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing guidelines.” Id. at 461-62.
Castro Gomez also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14-10355). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether a conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.
The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
613 F. App'x 410 (United States v. Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.