United States v. Jaime Silva-Mendoza

646 F. App'x 339
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 20, 2016
Docket15-41129
StatusUnpublished

This text of 646 F. App'x 339 (United States v. Jaime Silva-Mendoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jaime Silva-Mendoza, 646 F. App'x 339 (5th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jaime Silva-Mendoza raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — 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 a 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. Silva-Mendoza has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing1 or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing guidelines.” See id. at 461-62.

Silva-Mendoza also raises an argument that is foreclosed by our holding in United *340 States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 533, 193 L.Ed.2d 426 (2015). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior felony conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity. ,

Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed 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.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
646 F. App'x 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jaime-silva-mendoza-ca5-2016.