United States v. Gomez

613 F. App'x 410
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 18, 2015·No. No. 14-20712·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

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

United States v. Gomez, 613 F. App'x 410 (5th Cir. 2015).

613 F. App'x 410 (United States v. Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Rogelio Teran-Salas
767 F.3d 453 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Juan Martinez-Lugo
782 F.3d 198 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
Moore v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.
135 S. Ct. 1916 (Supreme Court, 2015)